wintoid
Back to film
My printer is dead, and I'm trying to work out what to replace it with. I've been doing my research, and am starting to think the HP 8750 is probably the right one. The question is, can I get the 8750 on my shelf?
I've checked the dimensions on the net, but it's not always the whole story. For example, I don't care if the paper input/output trays overhang the edge of my shelf. Does anyone know whether the printer would be stable on a shelf which is 285mm deep?
I've checked the dimensions on the net, but it's not always the whole story. For example, I don't care if the paper input/output trays overhang the edge of my shelf. Does anyone know whether the printer would be stable on a shelf which is 285mm deep?
acheyj
Well-known
Just pulled mine out so the paper in/out tray overhangs 350mm which is the max for a3+ paper. Printer is quite stable but the paper in tray is quite flimsy and could easily be damaged, I pull my tray out to overhang 50mm but its supported abt 10mm overhang of 60mm leaves it very flexible. I think you would really need some support, perhaps movable to be safe. The printer needs 50mm clearance at the rear for power/data cable entry. Bear in mind for card stock you have to feed from the rear.
ron
ron
wray
Well-known
Funny you should ask as I have my 8750 sitting on an 11 inch (285mm) shelf! It is stable but I must add that my shelving unit is open at the back and the printer is overhanging to the rear so that all four feet sit on the shelf. With a closed back shelf the paper tray will extend out 14cm!
Last edited:
wintoid
Back to film
Thanks guys. As it happens, I bought an 8750, and it seems to fit fine, with tray overhang of course.
Nice printer, so much to learn. I was a bit shocked how easy it is to smudge a print with a damp finger, but I've got the Hahnemuhle protective spray now, and that seems to sort that problem.
Nice printer, so much to learn. I was a bit shocked how easy it is to smudge a print with a damp finger, but I've got the Hahnemuhle protective spray now, and that seems to sort that problem.
wray
Well-known
By the way,give Ilford Galerie Classic Pearl a try with the 8750. It renders quite nicely, dries quickly and seems less prone to damp smudging than the HP papers. Enjoy your new printer!
amateriat
We're all light!
Interesting indeed. I've had my 8750 for the better part of four years, and I love it so much, I recently found and bought a second, barely-used one from someone (good old Craigslist) to salt away as a spare.
The only thing (somewhat) flimsy is the output tray, but I think you'd need to be rather rough with it to do any appreciable damage. And, yes, compared to, say, an equivalent Epson printer, it does take up a bit of room in terms of depth. On the other hand, the transport mechanism, IMO, is less vulnerable to dust and other airborne nasties. (But I do advise covering it with something when not in use.)
Color output is simply great, but the nicest surprise is black-and-white: I've yet to find a turn-key printer, using box-stock inks, papers, and profiles, that produces dead-neutral prints as this one does, with virtually no visual side-effects. (Wray: I'm partial to HP's Premium Plus Satin/Soft Gloss, but Galerie Classic Pearl is nice, too.)
Edit: Wintoid, one thing to remember with HP's Premium Plus papers: it takes a while for the inks to "settle in" to the paper (both HP's Premium/Premium Plus papers, as well as Ilford's Classic series papers, are swellable-polymer type). The downside here is that they take a while to fully dry/settle/"cure", and are quite vulnerable to physical damage beforehand. The upside is that, once they do, there's virtually no sign of bronzing, gloss differential, or metamerism present in the print.
- Barrett
The only thing (somewhat) flimsy is the output tray, but I think you'd need to be rather rough with it to do any appreciable damage. And, yes, compared to, say, an equivalent Epson printer, it does take up a bit of room in terms of depth. On the other hand, the transport mechanism, IMO, is less vulnerable to dust and other airborne nasties. (But I do advise covering it with something when not in use.)
Color output is simply great, but the nicest surprise is black-and-white: I've yet to find a turn-key printer, using box-stock inks, papers, and profiles, that produces dead-neutral prints as this one does, with virtually no visual side-effects. (Wray: I'm partial to HP's Premium Plus Satin/Soft Gloss, but Galerie Classic Pearl is nice, too.)
Edit: Wintoid, one thing to remember with HP's Premium Plus papers: it takes a while for the inks to "settle in" to the paper (both HP's Premium/Premium Plus papers, as well as Ilford's Classic series papers, are swellable-polymer type). The downside here is that they take a while to fully dry/settle/"cure", and are quite vulnerable to physical damage beforehand. The upside is that, once they do, there's virtually no sign of bronzing, gloss differential, or metamerism present in the print.
- Barrett
Last edited:
acheyj
Well-known
Just to confirm what a superb BW printer the 8750 is, have been printing with Leica gear and MF cameras since mid 50's. In my opinion the prints from the digital HP are better than any 35 prints I have made and at least the equal to the best of my MF prints.
Colour of course is good tho I never did any wet darkroom colour printing.
I use Ilford paper and their ICC profile most of the time
ron
Colour of course is good tho I never did any wet darkroom colour printing.
I use Ilford paper and their ICC profile most of the time
ron
wintoid
Back to film
Good to hear about the Ilford Classic Pearl as I have 400 sheets of this coming in the post 
I left my HP Premium Plus (glossy unfortunately) to dry for 3 days, and it seemed fine, but then I tried licking my finger and gently wiping the border, and it smudged. After using the Hahnemuhle protective spray, a wet finger does not smudge it.
Are you guys saying that with Classic Pearl I won't need to use the spray? That would be nice.
Lightroom - I couldn't get consistent prints out of Lightroom in colour out-of-the-box. I gather there's something to do with the profile Lightroom uses (ProPhoto RGB), which is hardcoded. In the end, I set Lightroom to use the "sRGB" profile as the output, and disabled ICM in the printer driver. This seemed to do the trick, but I'm sure is probably wrong, logically speaking. Finally I switched to QImage, and I doubt I will go back to Lightroom for printing now. Black and white is fine from Lightroom, although QImage still looks better, so I'll stick with it.
Profiles - it hadn't occurred to me that by selecting the grey inks only, it would disable ICC profiles completely. This basically means that if you want to print with profiles (e.g. for Classic Pearl), you can't forbid the printer to use the colour carts when printing BW. Or have I misunderstood?
Vista 64 - I've read several times that people got different results with XP than Vista, and that the 64 bit drivers were not mature. I'm not sure, but I don't *think* it's a problem, at least now that I'm using QImage.
On balance, though, I'm as happy as a pig in mud.
I left my HP Premium Plus (glossy unfortunately) to dry for 3 days, and it seemed fine, but then I tried licking my finger and gently wiping the border, and it smudged. After using the Hahnemuhle protective spray, a wet finger does not smudge it.
Are you guys saying that with Classic Pearl I won't need to use the spray? That would be nice.
Lightroom - I couldn't get consistent prints out of Lightroom in colour out-of-the-box. I gather there's something to do with the profile Lightroom uses (ProPhoto RGB), which is hardcoded. In the end, I set Lightroom to use the "sRGB" profile as the output, and disabled ICM in the printer driver. This seemed to do the trick, but I'm sure is probably wrong, logically speaking. Finally I switched to QImage, and I doubt I will go back to Lightroom for printing now. Black and white is fine from Lightroom, although QImage still looks better, so I'll stick with it.
Profiles - it hadn't occurred to me that by selecting the grey inks only, it would disable ICC profiles completely. This basically means that if you want to print with profiles (e.g. for Classic Pearl), you can't forbid the printer to use the colour carts when printing BW. Or have I misunderstood?
Vista 64 - I've read several times that people got different results with XP than Vista, and that the 64 bit drivers were not mature. I'm not sure, but I don't *think* it's a problem, at least now that I'm using QImage.
On balance, though, I'm as happy as a pig in mud.
wray
Well-known
Have you tried converting the image to greyscale as a last step before printing?
amateriat
We're all light!
Using Greyscale Only is the only way I print b/w on the 8750. The only reason for using all inks for b/w would be if I wanted a particular level of warm/cool toning (which I generally don't). Being able to use just those three inks is what makes the 8750 the great printer it is. (Don't try this with the later HP B9180, especially with gloss/satin papers.)
- Barrett
- Barrett
- Barrett
- Barrett
wintoid
Back to film
My Classic Pearl arrived, and I'm really happy with it. I tried a "just printed" smudge with dry hands, and it smudges. No surprise I guess. Will also try after a few hours, and a wet finger test too. If it still smudges, I'll keep on with the protective spray I guess. The prints look beautiful.
What paper setting do people use to print on Classic Pearl? I tried to use Premium Film, but perhaps due to Vista 64, the printer decided to print absolutely nothing. Using the Premium Photo Plus setting, it prints fine.
What paper setting do people use to print on Classic Pearl? I tried to use Premium Film, but perhaps due to Vista 64, the printer decided to print absolutely nothing. Using the Premium Photo Plus setting, it prints fine.
acheyj
Well-known
My understanding is that all dye based prints are not waterfast, in fact they are VERY prone to damage with even very small droplets eg., sneezes etc, have not tried the protective spay, must do so.
Yup love the classic pearl (also smooth gloss), use it with or without Illfords ICC's
ron
Yup love the classic pearl (also smooth gloss), use it with or without Illfords ICC's
ron
wintoid
Back to film
I'm getting a pink bleed from the Hahnemuhle spray, so I will investigate different sprays. A little frustrating this, especially as there's not much good info out there. Will be trying the Ghiant spray next
wray
Well-known
How long are you allowing the prints to dry before spraying them. Normally, I allow the HP prints to dry for 24 hours prior to handling them extensively. HP recommends allowing the prints to dry a week before mounting and framing to allow for outgassing.
wintoid
Back to film
I am getting a bleed when spraying prints which are 2 days old. At 2 days old, they are also still smudgeable with a dry finger.
amateriat
We're all light!
Okay, here's the deal:
Using HP's Premium Plus papers (which I use almost exclusively for my own work, including prints for exhibition/sale) the prints basically need several days for the inks to "settle." This isn't a peculiarity exclusive to the 8750: many dye-based inks, printed on swellable-polymer papers, require a certain amount of time before the prints are "hadleable." Pigment-based inks, of course, dry very quickly, and don't require so much fuss post-printing (and are more waterfast), but then there's all the fuss with bronzing, gloss differential and metamerism, along with the need for heavy-duty profiling and calibration. You pays your money and takes your choice. I'll take Vivera dyes and deal with the waterfast issue, thankyouverymuch.
(I tell prospective buyers of my prints, "Treat it like you'd treat a Renoir watercolor." Its lightfast qualities nearly match most prints made with pigs, but don't splash your aperitif on any print you actually paid for, would you?)
If you're going to spray the print, give it at least four days to a week. Then, give it just one coat, let it settle and dry before applying a second coat. I don't coat mine because I love the finish of the paper as-is, and don't care to mess with that. I simply inform the potential buyer about the particular matters of these prints. I think the quality of the prints make the small extra effort in care worth it, and at least a few actual buyers have agreed.
- Barrett
wintoid
Back to film
Thanks, Barrett.
I've just done another smudge test on my test print, and after 3 days, it's not smudging with a dry finger. Still does with a wet finger, but I guess that won't change?
So, from what you're saying, the Hahnemuhle protective spray might be OK, but I should wait longer before spraying. I'll give the test print a week, and then try that I guess.
Cheers!
I've just done another smudge test on my test print, and after 3 days, it's not smudging with a dry finger. Still does with a wet finger, but I guess that won't change?
So, from what you're saying, the Hahnemuhle protective spray might be OK, but I should wait longer before spraying. I'll give the test print a week, and then try that I guess.
Cheers!
amateriat
We're all light!
Odd as it may sound, I've given my prints up to a solid week before framing them: besides making certain they've dried sufficiently, this is the point where they look damned near perfect: none of the side-effects that plague too many pigment-ink-based prints without a hell of a lot of fussing about (bronzing, gloss differential, etc.). The principal (in fact, only) Achilles' heel is absolute waterfastness, which diminishes somewhat, but not entirely, with time. But you wouldn't want any print to meet with water in an untoward way, regardless of printing method.
And I haven't found a printer yet that quite matches the output I've gotten from the 8750. I've seen really good stuff, but not without certain artifacts that spell out "inkjet" all too clearly, and I can't deal with that (or with paying insane sums of money to diminish it somewhat). Even Epson hasn't written off dye inks yet, given their continuing R & D to that end. There has to be a reason for that.
- Barrett
Jim Evidon
Jim
A friend of mine has the HP8150 which is a dye printer and he complains about the fact that while it makes brilliant prints, it is extremely thirsty.
I have the HP Pro 9180 for a little more money. It is a pigment printer and the prints are spectacular. The cost of the cartridges look expensive until you realize that they hold more than twice the ink of other printers and it has 8 different tanks that are separate from the print heads. The tubes leading to the print heads remain full and when you get an empty cartridge signal (that's right, I let my cartirdges run dry), I change cartridges mid print and it re commences printing without any gaps.
It also services itself once daily as long as you leave it on (recommended by HP) and it has a pass thru that allows you to 13" wide by several feet long if you wish to do so. It also has a built in scan to keep the prints within spec.
The inks, according to Wilhelm have 200 year archival life, as if I really care. The foot print is similar to the 8150 and is 18" deep by 26" wide, so it's a big mother. But I have been using it for about 1.5 years and has never let me down. BTW, HP sells the ink at discount with free shipping overnight if you wish, plus they send nice discount coupons for future orders.
BTW, I have absolutely no connection with HP.
I have the HP Pro 9180 for a little more money. It is a pigment printer and the prints are spectacular. The cost of the cartridges look expensive until you realize that they hold more than twice the ink of other printers and it has 8 different tanks that are separate from the print heads. The tubes leading to the print heads remain full and when you get an empty cartridge signal (that's right, I let my cartirdges run dry), I change cartridges mid print and it re commences printing without any gaps.
It also services itself once daily as long as you leave it on (recommended by HP) and it has a pass thru that allows you to 13" wide by several feet long if you wish to do so. It also has a built in scan to keep the prints within spec.
The inks, according to Wilhelm have 200 year archival life, as if I really care. The foot print is similar to the 8150 and is 18" deep by 26" wide, so it's a big mother. But I have been using it for about 1.5 years and has never let me down. BTW, HP sells the ink at discount with free shipping overnight if you wish, plus they send nice discount coupons for future orders.
BTW, I have absolutely no connection with HP.
Last edited:
amateriat
We're all light!
Jim: Can't say I've noticed the 8750 being any thirstier than previous Epson printers I've owned (1200/1270/2200). One thing I'll say in its favor is that I've had fewer reprints to do on account of clogged/misfiring print heads and the like, so I'd say I might be coming out at least a bit ahead on ink costs. Also, remember that since the HP 8750 carts have the print head built into the cartridge rather than permanently mounted in the printer, the ink carts can be run dry, as opposed to the Epson carts, which "require" having some unused ink left in them at the end of their useful life, lest the heads be damaged. I agree that the marger carts of the B9180/B8850 offer potential greater per-print value, but I prefer what I see coming out of the 8750. But there's no one "perfect" path in the world of digital printing. (Not yet, anyway.)
- Barrett
- Barrett