Is the colour mixing for the native hp paper types (e.g. Matte Litho, Textured Fine Art, etc) any different than the colour mixing for the custom paper types (Fine Art, Heavyweight Fine Art, etc)?

Which is to say in other words -- is the only difference between these paper types the linearization and ICC profiles?

Or maybe I should get to the point: To find the optimal colour mixing for an arbitrary paper (let us say Moab Entrada), can I stick with the 2-3 likely generic paper types (e.g. Fine Art) and get the best output, or do I really need to try tricking the driver with similar hp papers?

... I really don't want guesswork here. I've got my own guesses and I'm sick of them. I'm ready to try it, but at thirty minutes + per variation, I could be at this all week.

Thanks!

Sean,

This is a very good question. I ws just about to start testing HM PhotoRag and Entrada as something different than "Thick Fine Art" to see if I could improve the darker colors over the profiles that I made the way they should have been.

As I started looking at the paper types like Litho or Super Heavyweight Matte that I wanted to experiment with as far as ink loading, I was afraid that the platen would be set too low and head strikes would occur if I did not use the "Thick Fine Art" selection. Both of these papers are 300 gsm or so.

There is no where in the HP driver that we can adjust the ink loading, so I'm at a loss as to what to try here.

Maybe just calibrating each paper and then, as you suggested, try different profiles. However, looking at the soft proofs using a couple of different matte profile selections really does not seem to provide any real difference in ink density in the darker areas of the prints.

I am looking for suggestions as well.

ADDED UPDATE:

Since my curiosity could not be tamed. I proceeded to calibrate the PhotoRag 308 paper as if it were the HP Matte Litho-Realistic and then profile it as such. The first thing I notoiced on the calibration print was that the grays on the right side of the target which apparently use the photo black ink seemed to be more defined...a little less ink (lighter) and a little more difference between the darker shades.

The profile target I created looked like a different ink set had been used when compared to the Heavy Fine Art target used the first time around on the PhotoRag. The top of the target was much bluer and less purple on the Litho target. Very noticeable...so the ink laydown was completely different. The good news here was that no head strikes occurred as I had worried about.

I then printed my Blue Mood photo (which I used in my First Impressions post a few days back) and noticed that there were two obvious improvements. A swatch of electric medium blue on the rock face was improved and the transitions from deep black to various deep shades in the middle and foreground water was way better with less blocking up. All other aspects of the image remained visually the same,in other words...very good. I'm about 99% of the way to reproducing the print as it comes off an Epson 9600 on PhotoRag. This warrants more experimentation with the PhotoRag.

I should have some HP Fine Art Smooth here tomorrow to compare to the PhotoRag

Jim

There are new media set ups to be added to the next firmware revision.
I don't know if they will be documented, but do hope so.
As many changes are made each firmware rev, they are often changes outside of specific user /testers requests, they come in as unnoticed.
Since most of the requests here on LL forum are about matte media and or linearisations for certain gamut extensions it's important that they are documented so current users know what to expect and how to best use what changes there are.
Actual ink separations may or may not be in there, and documented ink separations would not be useful to end users. Perhaps a note on expected colour changes in what regions etc would though if indeed there are ink separation changes, and or for what media types.

Profiles are separate items that are always something to test in the field. These profiles also need to be made with all the settings new or old , from fresh calibrations.
I printed some charts on perc and relative last night to confirm proximity of appearance between yet again the externally created profiles and the latest APS. The synthetic Lab locust is different but the overall appearance by other viewers (feminine to eliminate my old eyes) is identical. With experience I do see some areas but most viewers would not notice differences.

All this is to say even though there are changes in setups, with a fresh calibration and profile, the prints you made before will still produce near identical sellable prints. It is only in the difficult areas where improvements will show from subtle to moderate gains in colour such as reds on the modified media setups.

Probably unique in that HP is continuing to work with end users, third party developers, to provide ongoing solutions, modifications and improvements. There are still more to come, and they are still listening and acting upon all your comments, (and mine too sometimes....)

Jim,

Thanks for performing this test. The results are disappointing but not unexpected.

It seems essential now that developing a good driver config for third party paper will encompass not only creating profiles for likely generic papers, but profiles for similar HP papers as well. This might entail as many as half a dozen different calibration/ICC generation passes per media type to find the best combination.

I'd hoped that HP would provide good separations for generic papers. Maybe they will as part of the evolving gamut improvements we've been promised.

Actually, I'd really hoped that HP would use the linearization data from the paper to create the separation, rather than to just have predefined separations. But this is probably not the case and is too much to expect. (Although I would expect that a good algorithm in combination with the built in scanner could create good separations on arbitrary paper).

It should be said that I'm not pleased that in order to get the best response from third party paper, I might not be able to use the provided generic paper profiles, but must instead fool the print driver by selecting an HP paper instead. Hopefully this will change.

Anyway, more research is indicated.

The spectrophotmeter does calibrations on whatever media you try. This doesn't have much or anything to do with ink separations. The calibration is there to print solid patches of ink tank colours, read them to create a graph of densities, then create a table that best linearises this inking /media combination.
Just as in other drivers including Epson you can use sliders to increase or decrease total inking. The media set ups for third party media are about assumptions for all drivers. This is not necessarily true for rips BTW.
The spectro will build a profile to characterise the output solids and composites, preferably after a calibration.

Ink separations are always outside of these loops but are considered when the actual separations are made. They are quite intricate to make , and a subtle change has a huge effect on colour repro and image quality. They are not done on a per media basis in drivers, but can be in rips.
It's not as if all the media are wrong , nor need tweaking , rather a specific few, and of those few they are for media types that are mostly third party additions to the previously made set ups.
The built in set ups for HP media including matte are now very good. Users can achieve excellent results so there isn't a much to more to do within that scope. The other side are third party media set ups and or generic set ups if we prefer to look at it that way. The ones already there were tested on certain media. Which, I don't know exactly. It seems that the media sample types they used was not large enough of a selection to cover all media. Yet this doesn't preclude that some of the media ( third party ) wouldn't already have been alright.
For others experimentation was always the way to do things. For Epson users for many years the Epson wide format yahoo group was the ultimate stop in sharing this information. Still is many would say.
Possibly the answer to sharing solutions could be found on a similar HP forum , and that sharing of information would take away disappointment and turn it into a camaraderie for the good of everyone.
I think Ernst started a forum already, as the Epson folk didn't want to have everyone using the new non Epson LFP's sharing the same space. Give it time, not only are user just getting started, but HP are working continuously improving things in many fronts.

Hello,

Do you have a link to the forum you mention? I agree: it would be great to have a forum/wiki with updates on media setting results, as well as other issues.

Thanks,

Michael Morrison

I think should be this: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/.

yahoo, juck ... a wiki would be much nicer ;-)

Yeah, so, I did my own test about the colour mixing. And I'm pretty upset at HP at this point. Here's my methodology:

Tested Paper: Staples Supreme Photo Satin
Profiling tool: X-Rite DTP20 (handheld) with Pulse Color Elite RGB

Config 1 (Generic): Custom paper type as "Photo Paper -> Photo Semi-Gloss/Satin Paper"
Config 2 (HP): Lied to the driver; said it was "Photo Paper -> HP Pro Satin Photo"

For each configuration, I ran a calibration/linearization, then printed the 729 patch calibration target from Monaco Pulse ColorElite. Print driver set to "application managed colour".

The linearization targets looked essentially identical, as I expected. But even to my eyes, the calibration targets were *vastly* different. The HP config had much deeper and richer colours and much better contrast. I don't usually expect to be able to so easily differentiate profiling targets, but the difference is amazing.

After creating the ICM profiles for each configuration, I loaded them up in GamutWorks for review.

The Generic config has a volume of 1,317K while the HP config has a volume of 1,531K. Most of the additional volume is in the deep saturated colours, but surprisingly there is also substantial more gamut in the lighter colours. It is like a whole new printer.

I have a brutally broad gamut floral print with extremely saturated magentas and purples (far outside the gamut of my displays, in fact, thanks to ProPhoto) that was totally destroyed by the generic config. Printed again with the HP config, it approaches the prints from my dye-based Canon equipment (which is nothing short of remarkable).

So, why am I upset at HP? Locking the better capabilities of the printer/driver to HP branded papers, when those capabilities are clearly applicable to all papers, is deceptive. A naive user will be discouraged from using third party papers if they go through the recommended "add custom paper" setup routine, because the output is poor. When, technologically speaking, there is no need for poor quality output on custom papers at all. The printer is capable of doing better -- you just have to tell it you're using HP-branded paper, and "voila!" The output is better!

Continuing on in this approach -- lying to the printer and the driver about the paper type because the generic-based custom paper types result in inferior prints -- is not acceptable. I would need to re-linearize my chosen HP paper type each time I used a new third-party paper in that slot (although I could keep my ICC profiles), because there's no way to duplicate one of those slots.

I expect HP to open up the full capability of this printer to the generic paper types ASAP, or I will not be a very happy customer.

N.B. I *do* like the prints. But the technical tomfoolery required to get them is reproachful.

I would be happy to mail the two ICM profiles (Generic and HP) to anyone interested.

Something just dawned on me.
You are right , if there is no control in the calibration set up , there is no way to add density to the media set up outside of choosing a stock such as HP Pro Satin. Then, when you use the Pro Satin you have to recalibrate each time. You loose the ink and media ( depends what size or width of media) and ten minutes. Okay it doesn't cost much in consumables, compared to an Epson on a matte to photo black but it should and could be avoided. You could add density in the driver after the profile but that is not ideal.
I'm sure they pondered the idea ( guess where these ideas may have come from!) of having controls in the calibration for incremental TAC. Perhaps they can see the need , now.
This problem of calibrations exists or existed with the HP DJ 30-130 as well when using the HP rip , one had to calibrate to a media type that was different than the actual media then switch back, recal when you used the designated media.


This said , I can confirm the inclusion of other media type set ups coming soon. They are in test.

In all fairness, custom media and more precise control belongs in the domain of rip developers.
When you see what GMG does with the calibrations, profiles and iterative controls , you understand why a rip can cost as much or more than the printer.
A slider in the calibration menu would make this a lot easier though....

Neil,

For the user with some experience it hasn't been much different on the Epson models + OEM driver and as I understand it it is even more difficult on the Canon models to add third party papers with the driver. The advantage of the printer's integrated calibration plays a part in HP's case but it wasn't different with Epson's ColorBase calibration, with that one you had to recalibrate as well when different papers were used with the same media profile. All fast solutions there abandoned calibration or kept the calibration fixed on the OEM paper and solved the rest more or less with the ICC profiles. A lot more work with the Epsons to do it proper way.

It would be nice though if the Advanced Profiling Solution gave the possibility to copy the calibration/media profile to a custom paper and keep the calibrations then specific for that custom paper without influencing the original paper calibration. Something between a normal OEM driver and a RIP. I have no experience with APS though. A slider to add ink is a crude thing, I wonder whether the calibration ink settings only vary in inkload, don't think it is as simple as the raw linearising target of a RIP, it will be more complicated like the media profiles are more complicated in total. Asking all that control would be asking for RIP specifics and that really goes beyond the turn key solution of the Z3100 + driver + HP papers.

Just putting the profiling targets of Litho-realistic (new one) and the Fine Art > 250 gr next to one another and checking the first line patches + hexa patches reveals more than ink limits set higher.

Ernst Dinkla

try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

I guess that the good folks developping the HP version of Image Print must be real glad to read about these current limitations of the HP drivers/profiling solution.

Still, I wonder if they will somehow make use of the HP calibration/profiling hardware capability in IP7 for Z3100, or if they will keep sticking to pre-created profiles.

Cheers,
Bernard

For gosh sakes, the printer's got a spectrophotometer built right in! I really don't think I'm asking too much for the printer to be able to analyze any arbitrary paper and determine a near optimal inking profile for it. That's what the "custom paper" scenarios are intended to do, right? The calibration pass? The ICC profile generation? Give it a couple sheets of tabloid and thirty minutes and you've got fantastic output, yes? This is the expectation that has been raised by HP -- the manuals and menus and marketing materials and operational characteristics of the printer and driver all imply that this is why the z3100 is such a fantastic and innovative device.

But it isn't actually what you get.

What you GET is a marketing ploy to get people to buy HP paper by demonstrating that third party papers suck. After you add your custom paper and compare it to HP paper output, it's just like the printer says, "Look, see, we tried our best to make your Ilford papers look good, but it just doesn't work as nicely as the HP stuff does."

Why don't they just go ahead and add a toll-free number for ordering HP papers as a watermark on anything printed with a custom paper profile? It would save time, and be more honest.

At this point I would be happier if the printer didn't have a built in spectrophotometer at all, and didn't have formal support for custom paper -- and also cost a couple grand less -- because I really don't like this kind of foolishness at all.

Not pleased, not one little bit.

Sean,
When the media set ups were being done, there were as you can expect must of the buzz around the HP new medias. Rather normal to do so.
Then come the very early testers with their favourite papers. Well just happens that everyones favourite third party paper at the time was Museo if I remember right, that when inked as the HP satins or the photo satin it was showing problems of coalescence. So fix one problem , make new ink loads for the calibrations. They should work for those papers well. Now new users come with their favourite media. Happens that these paper need more inking. So back to square one, either adjust the presets, or add new ones.
Both are being done. Profiling is after ink set ups are made. The spectro does what it is supposed to for both calibrations and profiling. Optimising third party media is something that is always going to be an approximation.
The only thing it seems that would make you happy then is actually additional media set ups and or some control or interface for saving out these presets.
Everything else works as far as hardware calibration, profiling goes.
The built in set ups for HP media are from what media I have all working too.
Since the HP Satin set up provides the gamut boundaries and or ink densities that perform better than the current presets , then it says that very simply another preset with more inking is needed.
HP eng., are very capable of doing things like this so please do ask them to do so. Maybe they already have, yet communication with them will help bring solutions faster , with clearer knowledge of users needs.