Epson 2200 vs HP 9180 for Pt/Pd Printing

Hi All:

I searched the forums for any information regarding the use of the HP 9180 printer for the creation of digital negs, and read everything found. It appears that the HP printer may be a very good choice for the creation of digital negs on Pictorico OHP.

In the past, I have used the Epson 2200 to create digital negs--using Mark Nelson's PDN system--and it seems that a green neg is the best choice for this printer. Based on what I read in previous posts, am I correct that Sandy and others are recommending a RED neg from the HP 9180? Within the next few weeks I plan to run some new calibrations with Mark's new CCII and I want to start off on the right foot. I have both the 2200 and the 9180, but it sounds like the 9180 would be the better choice of the two? Agreed?

Thanks for any help provided.

Alan9940 said:

Hi All:

I searched the forums for any information regarding the use of the HP 9180 printer for the creation of digital negs, and read everything found. It appears that the HP printer may be a very good choice for the creation of digital negs on Pictorico OHP.

In the past, I have used the Epson 2200 to create digital negs--using Mark Nelson's PDN system--and it seems that a green neg is the best choice for this printer. Based on what I read in previous posts, am I correct that Sandy and others are recommending a RED neg from the HP 9180? Within the next few weeks I plan to run some new calibrations with Mark's new CCII and I want to start off on the right foot. I have both the 2200 and the 9180, but it sounds like the 9180 would be the better choice of the two? Agreed?

Thanks for any help provided.

Click to expand...

The only negative I've heard about the 9180 is that it may have some problems with feeding transparency materials.

Don

I'm using a 9180 for kallitypes and have found the best blocking colors among the reds, using Dead Link Removed I've also used composite black with good results, but have found the black harder to curve for whatever reason.

I've had some weirdness with the specialty media tray and the moving printer head getting jammed, but nothing that can't sort itself out with an alignment routine.

Alan9940 said:

In the past, I have used the Epson 2200 to create digital negs--using Mark Nelson's PDN system--and it seems that a green neg is the best choice for this printer. Based on what I read in previous posts, am I correct that Sandy and others are recommending a RED neg from the HP 9180? Within the next few weeks I plan to run some new calibrations with Mark's new CCII and I want to start off on the right foot. I have both the 2200 and the 9180, but it sounds like the 9180 would be the better choice of the two? Agreed?

Thanks for any help provided.

Click to expand...

I currently own both an Epson 2200 and a HP B9180. At one time I used a green (G255, B0, R) with the 2200 but am now using a QTR profile that Clay Harmon posted to this list. The profile works beautifully for me as is with straight palladium and vandyke, but I modified it slightly for carbon.

The Vivera ink set of the HP B9180 has excellent UV blocking in both the Green and Red array so that it works fine with PDN. I have found the Red array to give best results as it is more linear than Green and composite black.

If you print with the B9180 on Pictorico I recommend that you use the special media tray as this media tends to jam if run through the main tray.

The 2200 with the QTR profile appears to give slightly smoother results than the B9180 and for this reason, plus the fact that I have a lot of of the PhotoWarehouse OHP that will not work well with the B9180, I am still using the 2200 for most of my digital negatives.The B9180, on the other hand, makes much nicer looking digital prints, both color and monochrome, than the 2200.

Sandy King

Not satisfied at all with the HP 9180 for digital negatives

I own an HP 9180, and I am not happy at all with its capabilities for printing digital negatives. In my experience, it has (at least) two bad problems :
1) the rollers leave very marked traces on the negative, spaced 28 mm apart, where "teeth mark" are extremely visible in the paper path direction. This is by far the worst problem;
2) whatever settings I tried, the blacks are not as dense as those achievable on Epson printers, even compared to an old Epson C84 with Durabrite inks, or a Canon i865.

The tests were made on PerfectProof high density inkjet film.

mdebar said:

I own an HP 9180, and I am not happy at all with its capabilities for printing digital negatives. In my experience, it has (at least) two bad problems :
1) the rollers leave very marked traces on the negative, spaced 28 mm apart, where "teeth mark" are extremely visible in the paper path direction. This is by far the worst problem;
2) whatever settings I tried, the blacks are not as dense as those achievable on Epson printers, even compared to an old Epson C84 with Durabrite inks, or a Canon i865.

The tests were made on PerfectProof high density inkjet film.

Click to expand...

I understand your comment about the pizza wheel marks. I have seen this on several different OHP materials, and even on glossy photo papers. But I have not seen it with Pictorico so you might consider changing OHP.

As for the lack of density, I have not found that to be a problem in the least with the B9180. To the contrary, I have been able to get UV densities with the black inks on Pictorico that are as high or higher than Epson printers. For example, if you Control Controls = Grayscale and set to Gray Inks only with the Ink Density setting at normal you will get a Dmax of about log 3.00 on Pictorico, which gives a DR of 2.8.

Sandy King

mdebar said:

I own an HP 9180, and I am not happy at all with its capabilities for printing digital negatives. In my experience, it has (at least) two bad problems :
1) the rollers leave very marked traces on the negative, spaced 28 mm apart, where "teeth mark" are extremely visible in the paper path direction. This is by far the worst problem;
2) whatever settings I tried, the blacks are not as dense as those achievable on Epson printers, even compared to an old Epson C84 with Durabrite inks, or a Canon i865.

The tests were made on PerfectProof high density inkjet film.

Click to expand...

Perhaps a different substrate would help.

Don Bryant

HP 9180 and Perfect Proof : ok if using red for the negatives

I printed today a "red" negative by applying to the negative a new layer in "screen" mode, filled with R=255 G=20 B=0. Indeed, as suggested elsewhere, this very effectively blocks the UVs' and shows no pizza wheel marks on the Perfect Proof transparency film.

sanking said:

I understand your comment about the pizza wheel marks. I have seen this on several different OHP materials, and even on glossy photo papers. But I have not seen it with Pictorico so you might consider changing OHP.

As for the lack of density, I have not found that to be a problem in the least with the B9180. To the contrary, I have been able to get UV densities with the black inks on Pictorico that are as high or higher than Epson printers. For example, if you Control Controls = Grayscale and set to Gray Inks only with the Ink Density setting at normal you will get a Dmax of about log 3.00 on Pictorico, which gives a DR of 2.8.

Sandy King

Click to expand...

mdebar said:

I printed today a "red" negative by applying to the negative a new layer in "screen" mode, filled with R=255 G=20 B=0. Indeed, as suggested elsewhere, this very effectively blocks the UVs' and shows no pizza wheel marks on the Perfect Proof transparency film.

Click to expand...

You might also want to try G=255, R=10. I was doing some tests today with the HP 9180 and vandyke brown and found that this color produced less grain and a much linear output than R=255, G=10. This outcome could be specific to my printing light and vandyke but it might be worth your time to try it out.

Sandy King

I tried a green negative printed with the HP9180 and indeed it works rather well. Thanks, michel