The printer lets the target dry for a set amount of time, which I believe you can adjust (not by a day, though). I don't think you can print a target and scan it at a later time, but that's a good point, and I'll check on it. (I'm not close enough to the printer to check right now.) The targets are clearly labeled and time-stamped, so it might be possible at least to perform a secondary scan with another Eye-One system at a later point. That's worth checking.
Most of the pigment-based ink sets used today are generally more stable than the older dye sets, and the tools I've been using haven't been as stringent as the older calibrators (the first version of Monaco's profiler advocated 24 hours, if I recall correctly). I can say that I'm not seeing any color drift, even a week after printing (with the level and cost of these printers, I wouldn't expect it to be honest).
I still plan to run PrintFix Pro 2.0 with the Z3100, especially since it is optimized for black and white printing. I'll check with the profiler manufacturers to see if there's any caution beyond 'adequate time to dry,' which is what I see a lot of.
Thanks,
Rick
Well, I checked the manual, and saw the following:
If you would like to use a longer drying time, you can ask the HP Color Center to
create the test chart without going on to create a profile (Windows: Print target only; Mac
OS: Print ICC profiling chart). Then, later, when the chart is completely dry, you can restart
the HP Color Center and ask it to create a profile using the test chart you have already
created (Windows: Create ICC profile from a target that has already been printed; Mac
OS: Scan ICC profiling chart and create ICC profile). In this case the spectrophotometer
takes a while to warm up before it is ready to scan.
One more point in HP's favor, I'd say. One of the things that has impressed me is that they are really thinking about how people use the printer; image quality is obviously first and foremost, but usability is being paid attention to quite a bit as well.
The built-in paper calibration sounds really exciting! In the beginning there was only Epson. Then Canon began creeping in ... is it really time to start giving HP a serious look for quality output? Sounds like it and that's great to hear.
I'm still a bit skeptical though. I just recently had a dozen or so large prints made (36 x 48 in) and the shop was using an HP (not sure of the model). Even after warning the operator that I have a critical eye for color, he assured me the prints would be a perfect match. The results were disasterous - even after 3 attempts and 36 sheets of wasted paper, the color wasn't even close. (tried to tell him to just run some small samples first, but ...)
In my office, we also have a 17 in HP that was purchased last year. (used mostly by designers) In all honesty, the output can't compare to the Epson R2400 that I use for photos.
I know there are many, many variables to consider when making high quality prints (not the least of which is the operators skill and knowledge), but I've yet to see a print from an HP that I would consider worthy. Hopefully, that will change when I see real-world output from this class of HP printers - competition is a wonderful thing.
