Preparation for new printer - test prints

James Blonde

James Blonde

Messages
385
Name
Scott
Edit My Images
Yes
In anticipation of buying a big printer, I'd had a couple of test prints run off by one of the potential suppliers, on an HP Z6 and a Canon Pro 2000 (they didn't have an Epson P7000 and were quite dismissive of the Epson, primarily due to ink usage).

The test prints are disappointing, and show that I've clearly got a long way to go to understand the print process, and prepare my images for print, BUT once I do get there, I think I'll be able to produce far better and more tailored results than I'd get from a lab.

Why am I disappointed? Because I was hoping for a better "out the box" print, particularly given lab prints seem to resemble the original far better than what came off the printer

Original.jpg

This is the original image, which I sent through as a full size jpg. (this obviously isn't the full size jpg! but just to show the "out the box" colours, saturation and toning). As I understand it, it was just plugged straight into the printer, and then run off on lustre paper. Here are the results. The Canon is on the left, the HP on the right.

comparison.jpg

The HP is obviously the closest to the original image, in saturation and toning, but missing yellows. I'm guessing that's possibly a simple issue of not proofing for the printer and paper?
The Canon however is completely washed out and flat - I mean totally. Is this more than proofing at play here? Or is there really that much of a difference out of the box?

And if labs are printing straight out the box, why are their prints always more consistent with the original image?

In terms of actual print "quality," I'd say they're fairly evenly matched. There is more detail in the shadows on the Canon, but I *think* that might be because the shadows have been significantly lightened with the print lacking contrast / being washed out.

The question is, what steps can I take now to prepare and improve my images for print, and cut down the preparation and wastage I'd have to go through when setting up the printer? I do calibrate my monitor (Colormunki Display) but the printing and immediate preparation in this case was out of my hands (and actually usually is when I send to a lab).
 
- Were both prints done on the same paper? (assuming yes, but if not this could be a significant problem)
- Has the image gone to one person who had 2 printers connected to the same PC?
- Did the printer (person) fiddle with the files in any way or were they printed as-received?
- Do you suspect the supplier of giving you different prints to sway your decision? (Only reason I asked is that they were "dismissive" of Epson which is odd at that price bracket)

The LH print is terrible. And for such a massively expensive printer, I'm very surprised. The RH one looks so close it could be just an ICC profile away from perfect. If that were me, it would be an (albeit suspicious) no brainer.

Northlight images is always a good resource for printing and paper and he has this to say in his conclusion on the Canon : "If you can’t produce wonderful impressive looking large prints on a variety of media from this printer, then I’m going to suggest that the fault lays firmly with -your- skills." (Source: http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-imageprograf-pro-2000-printer-review/)

To me, that suggests something strange is going on and my advice would be to do a bit more research before parting with >£2k

Also - try an Epson too. When my 4800 packs up I'll be going to a P5000.
 
James Blonde said:
The question is, what steps can I take now to prepare and improve my images for prin
Click to expand...

Sorry - didn't actually see the question 'till I re-read. Do these printers do A4? I do an A4 test print before I do anything big because of potential wastage. Each image needs a little tweaking here & there, and so if I want it big, I always test first.

I don't think there's much you can do until you've settled on a device and got it home.
 
Thanks Harlequin :)

Yes, both on the same paper. As I understand it, they transferred the image to a USB stick, and plugged that directly into the printer - no manipulation, so printed as received.

I don't believe that the supplier was trying to manipulate my choice (well, except perhaps away from Epson!) In fact, I might have misunderstood, but I think they were suggesting they thought the Canon image "popped" more - I guess the church does, as it's darker on a lighter background, but pop isn't perhaps the word I'd use?

After my initial investigations, my top choice was the Epson P7000 given the much much lower price point, but hadn't entirely dismissed other options, particularly the Pro-2000 given the reviews - hence I was happy to get the test prints on the Canon and HP. I'd have loved an Epson test print, but they didn't have an Epson to test with and are the only company so far to have offered a test. Hopefully I'll get one done, but was thinking I might go to the Photography Show, so I'm sure I could get something done there. But.... am I going to get a Canon result, or an HP result?

With the HP, Yep, I suspected it was probably more down to profile than anything else - it's not horrendous! :D However the Canon is. Interestingly, it's very very similar to the result I had when I took this image to a local print shop when I was thinking about getting him to do my prints, and that was with both of us sitting at his workstation, I assume using correct profiles, and seeing something quite different come out the printer! He seemed happy, I was far from happy...! Obviously I know print output isn't the same as a screen, but I know I get better results with the lab.
 
HP prints looks pretty close for a blind test print. You don't have obvious yellows to start with. If you think you do it is maybe time to recalibrate monitor.

That canon I suspect was totally f***ed. Pretty much no darker magenta or red to be seen - so must be dried ink lines or faulty head - which sounds worrying with a printer that new, but maybe it had a very hard life so far.

All top of the line printers in good condition including older models should be able to handle your print without any issues.
 
Thanks LLP - that's a useful assessment! :D Makes me feel a bit better about it in that case. Yeh, heads on the HP are cheap enough in comparison to the others, there are just lots (well...5?) of them! :)

As I said either here or elsewhere (or both?!) there just doesn't seem to be the independent online knowledge / support / reviews on the HP that I'd want to risk it being my first printer, unless there was a truly compelling reason (like price or running costs), but was definitely a useful test, otherwise I'd never have known then Canon was knackered!.
 
James Blonde said:
Thanks LLP - that's a useful assessment! :D Makes me feel a bit better about it in that case. Yeh, heads on the HP are cheap enough in comparison to the others, there are just lots (well...5?) of them! :)

As I said either here or elsewhere (or both?!) there just doesn't seem to be the independent online knowledge / support / reviews on the HP that I'd want to risk it being my first printer, unless there was a truly compelling reason (like price or running costs), but was definitely a useful test, otherwise I'd never have known then Canon was knackered!.
Click to expand...

We don't know if the Canon was loaded with completely illogical settings. You'd think it won't be but you can't be sure. It looks a bit different (brighter, more green overall), but then there are colours plain missing which would ring all the alarm bells.

HP is a very reputable major manufacturer and you'd find many labs run their machines. It should all come down to the purchase and consumables cost and warranty options.

5 heads are quite unlikely to fail all at once.

I'd be happy with either of the big names if reasonable support option is offered. As I'm still playing with older ipfs it is all about cheaply scavenging dead ones on ebay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top