Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Canon iPF Pro-4000: The Bloom is Off the Rose?  (Read 3747 times)

John Hollenberg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 916
Canon iPF Pro-4000: The Bloom is Off the Rose?
« on: January 13, 2017, 05:46:32 PM »

Just ran across an update of Scott Martin's review of the Pro-4000.  Scott has been unabashedly pro Canon printers for a long time, but has some decidedly negative things to say about bronzing and gloss differential with the new printers.  Scroll to the bottom of the article to see the update:

http://www.on-sight.com/canon-ipf-pro-4000-review/

I don't have one of the new printers, so can't comment one way or the other.

Logged

Geraldo Garcia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 460
    • Personal blog
Re: Canon iPF Pro-4000: The Bloom is Off the Rose?
« Reply #1 on: January 14, 2017, 10:40:17 AM »

Thanks for the update.

With all due respect to Scott Martin, I partially disagree.

I do not use the Pro 2000/4000 models, so I can't comment his observations about paper handling. I have vast experience with the previous generation of large format printers from Canon and I am using the Pro 1000 for two months (smaller printer but same printhead and inkset of the Pro 2000/4000 models), so I can comment about the gloss differential, bronzing and how the new inkset stands against the old in this regard.

Bronzing: True, the new inkset is more prone to bronzing IF you do not use the Gloss Optimizer. If you use it in "auto" mode (only applied where ink is laid) sometimes you still get some bronzing on light grays. I suspect the "auto" option reduces not only the coverage but also the amount of G.O. laid, which turns out to be not enough to counteract the bronzing in light grays (sometimes).
The only way to prevent this is to set the printer to use the G.O. on the whole page. That works and eliminates the bronzing, but consumes more G.O. obviously.

Gloss Differential: Again he is right when he says it is more noticeable on semi-gloss/pearl papers, but that is the case with pretty much any printer with this type of paper. I feel the G.O. is actually quite good on this regard IF used on the WHOLE PAGE. Using the G.O. on "auto" is the perfect way to exacerbate gloss differential.
Logged

arobinson7547

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22
Re: Canon iPF Pro-4000: The Bloom is Off the Rose?
« Reply #2 on: January 14, 2017, 10:52:07 AM »

It is what is it.

But it sounds like you'd be paying for a flood to get rid of something 'that should not be there'. Making CO (in terms of usage) the new Photo Black (typically Canon's use the Photo Black, the most)

I'd rather just have a better inkset. Remember the x000 black inks and how they were replaced (all three Ks) in the x100 printers.

I'm sure it's not nearly as bad as that, but Cannon DOES have the ability to reformulate. Especially, if the users insist on it.
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10089
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Canon iPF Pro-4000: The Bloom is Off the Rose?
« Reply #3 on: January 14, 2017, 07:06:40 PM »

Just ran across an update of Scott Martin's review of the Pro-4000.  Scott has been unabashedly pro Canon printers for a long time, but has some decidedly negative things to say about bronzing and gloss differential with the new printers.  Scroll to the bottom of the article to see the update:

http://www.on-sight.com/canon-ipf-pro-4000-review/

I don't have one of the new printers, so can't comment one way or the other.

The Pro 1000/2000/4000 share the same printhead and inkset and I have worked with the first two quite a bit. First of all, it's important to clarify that the primary purpose of the CO ink is not for gloss differential. It is to enhance colour appearance. If CO is spread across the whole image, it can have the side effect of reducing gloss differential. If it is left in "Auto" mode, it will cover the inked parts of the print, but not the uninked parts. So, if you hold the print at an artificial angle from which you would never look at a print for any other purpose than discovering the existence of gloss differential, yes, you will see some on those paper-white areas that intermingle with colour-coated areas. If you look at the print at the normal angles optimizing the colour appearance of the image, you will not see gloss differential, so for all practical purposes this is a non-issue. As well, I struggled to see bronzing on any of my output on a number of luster-type papers, but didn't. I'm not interested in arguing with Scott Martin - he's a competent guy; but I'm just reporting my own experience and I believe what my eyes are showing me. On top of which, given the kind of testing I do, I have my stuff peer reviewed by qualified observers and none of my peer reviewers have remarked on either bronzing or gloss differential. As far as I'm concerned, end of story.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

MHMG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 993
Re: Canon iPF Pro-4000: The Bloom is Off the Rose?
« Reply #4 on: January 14, 2017, 07:47:50 PM »

The clearcoat inks from all of the manufacturers, whether they be called "chroma" or "gloss" "optimizers" or "enhancers", all seem to be engineered for optimal results on RC photo media, and RC media are what the marketing folks show you at trade shows. Deviate from RC media, and none of the current printer clearcoat options work as well on non RC fine art Glossy/luster type papers. They aren't laid down thick enough to do the job expected of them.  As such, for those of us who print on non RC papers, the clearcoat inks offered by any printer OEM represent only a partial solution to the problems of differential gloss and bronzing. I've even gone so far as to send a print sample through a second printer pass (tricking the printer to run the clearcoat totally across the entire print surface again by sending a perfectly white (rgb = 255, 255, 255) "image" to the printer driver on the second pass. That approach can work quite well, IMHO, but involves a second pass through the printer which is not an ideal answer.

If you are of the opinion that viewing a print under glazing and when looking perfectly normal to the print surface suppresses all gloss differential, bronzing, and even surface texture features of the media you have chosen, then you probably shouldn't even care about clearcoat features nor own a printer that has a clearcoat channel, and all of this discussion gets rather academic very quickly.  If, on the other hand, you anticipate that some people will observe your prints at angles other than perfectly perpendicular to the print surface, or perhaps even view "naked" prints not placed behind any glazing or laminate, then gloss differential, bronzing, and surface texture features are all factors to care about when their presence is disagreeable to you.   The best clearcoat performance I've seen to date actually resides in the prosumer Epson SC P400 desktop printer model, but that gloss optimizer technology is not available on any of Epson's pro/wide format models. An equally competent clearcoat performance was achieved by HP on its venerable Z series printers, with the enduser being able to increase clearcoat thickness by customizable preset media settings such that the gloss enhancer works pretty well (but not perfectly) even on non RC fine art glossy/luster media.  Canon's chroma optimizer is probably called "chroma" rather than "gloss" for a reason, because as Scott Martin noted, it comes up short as a total clearcoat strategy, particularly on non RC media.

IMHO, there's room for more improvement with printer clearcoat technology among all of the big three printer makers, and even today, if differential gloss and bronzing issues are to be totally eliminated on gloss/luster media printed on with pigmented ink printers, one still needs to resort to post processing spray coats with products like PremierArt Print Shield, Hahnemuhle Protective Spray, etc.

best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10089
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Canon iPF Pro-4000: The Bloom is Off the Rose?
« Reply #5 on: January 14, 2017, 09:36:36 PM »

.......... As such, for those of us who print on non RC papers, the clearcoat inks offered by any printer OEM represent only a partial solution to the problems of differential gloss and bronzing. ................

If you are of the opinion that viewing a print under glazing and when looking perfectly normal to the print surface suppresses all gloss differential, bronzing, and even surface texture features of the media you have chosen, then you probably shouldn't even care about clearcoat features nor own a printer that has a clearcoat channel, and all of this discussion gets rather academic very quickly.  If, on the other hand, you anticipate that some people will observe your prints at angles other than perfectly perpendicular to the print surface, or perhaps even view "naked" prints not placed behind any glazing or laminate, then gloss differential, bronzing, and surface texture features are all factors to care about when their presence is disagreeable to you.  ...............
best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

In the Canon lexicon *chroma optimizer* has a specific meaning you can look up, and it is not primarily related to gloss differential. If you are using one of these printers you DO care about the clearcoat channel because it is part of the inkset structured to enhance the overall vibrancy of the image appearance. It was engineered that way, involving a great deal of research in Canon's Kanagawa laboratories. They did rethink the inkset from the ground up.

As for how the prints are viewed, in case I wasn't clear enough and for avoidance of doubt, unless I looked at the sheet at very unnatural angles I could not see the gloss differential. As well, there are angles at which you can view the prints whereby you see the paper texture but not the gloss differential. You don't - or better I should say I don't - want to see a lot of reflective paper texture that detracts from appreciation of image detail, so I hold the paper accordingly - if I dare say so in the "nude", and in those positions I did not see gloss differential. Also for further clarity, I'm talking about various flavours of luster-type papers. If we switch the conversation to Canon Pro Platinum - a glossy paper -  run through the Pro-2000 printer, I did not see gloss differential at any angle, nor any bronzing. 
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

Gary Mulcahey

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 29
Re: Canon iPF Pro-4000: The Bloom is Off the Rose?
« Reply #6 on: January 16, 2017, 12:52:59 PM »

Thanks Mark. That post helped me make up my mind.
I will be purchasing an new 2000 in the next few weeks sometime.
Looking forward to giving the Canon gloss paper a go.

G

kevinmcdnyc

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23
Re: Canon iPF Pro-4000: The Bloom is Off the Rose?
« Reply #7 on: January 16, 2017, 09:18:47 PM »

Still no ink permanence numbers for the Canon Pro2000 and 4000?
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10089
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Canon iPF Pro-4000: The Bloom is Off the Rose?
« Reply #8 on: January 16, 2017, 09:29:50 PM »

Still no ink permanence numbers for the Canon Pro2000 and 4000?

I asked recently - No, not yet. They know people are interested.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

kevinmcdnyc

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23
Re: Canon iPF Pro-4000: The Bloom is Off the Rose?
« Reply #9 on: January 16, 2017, 09:47:12 PM »

Thanks, Mark!  It has certainly been awhile.
Logged

MHMG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 993
Re: Canon iPF Pro-4000: The Bloom is Off the Rose?
« Reply #10 on: January 16, 2017, 10:03:00 PM »

IMHO, Canon management made a calculated decision that print permanence figures for its newest ink set will hardly make or break the sales quotas on its newest line of imagePrograf 1000, 2000, and 4000 printers. Canon management probably believes photographers see "pigmented ink" in the spec sheet, and that's good enough to assure the customer on any and all print permanence issues. If only it were that simple :)

Some print samples made with the latest Canon Lucia Pro-11 ink set on a few different media are now in test at Aardenburg Imaging & Archives

http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/portfolio/inks-and-media-testing-2017/

Some truly independent results with definitive answers are in the works.

kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10089
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Canon iPF Pro-4000: The Bloom is Off the Rose?
« Reply #11 on: January 17, 2017, 09:46:41 AM »

IMHO, Canon management made a calculated decision ................. Canon management probably believes ........................

http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/portfolio/inks-and-media-testing-2017/

Some truly independent results with definitive answers are in the works.

kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

Glad you phrased it so we know you know this is pure speculation, but setting that aside and turning to the scientific side of it,  what matters is the results of your testing; looking forward to seeing the outcomes.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

MHMG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 993
Re: Canon iPF Pro-4000: The Bloom is Off the Rose?
« Reply #12 on: January 17, 2017, 12:33:44 PM »

Glad you phrased it so we know you know this is pure speculation, but setting that aside and turning to the scientific side of it,  what matters is the results of your testing; looking forward to seeing the outcomes.

That Canon management has made a calculated decision requires very little speculation on my part. Can anyone seriously regard it as a simple oversight going on nearly two years since the release of the Pro-1000 model into the marketplace?  These printers aren't office printers. They are aimed at the photography and fine art printing market which is arguably the only market where print longevity matters (outdoor signage being another market for longevity concerns yet with very different expectations for durability).  That said, any specific reason(s) why Canon has chosen not to offer print longevity guidance to date is indeed speculative on my part, so thank you, Mark S., for calling me to task on my unintentional overreach.

best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10089
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Canon iPF Pro-4000: The Bloom is Off the Rose?
« Reply #13 on: January 17, 2017, 02:27:13 PM »

Mark,

The Pro-1000 became commercially available around end-November early December 2015, so it has been on the market a little over a year. I too would have hoped by now to see published longevity information, but for whatever reason it isn't - is it "calculated decision", "oversight", "chosen not to offer", technical or procedural issues delaying publication - we simply don't know, but no harm jogging their memories that people would like to see it; in any case, as I said, comforting that you will be eventually providing information on the subject when your work is completed.   
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

MHMG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 993
Re: Canon iPF Pro-4000: The Bloom is Off the Rose?
« Reply #14 on: January 17, 2017, 03:42:59 PM »

Mark,

... as I said, comforting that you will be eventually providing information on the subject when your work is completed.

Aardenburg tests of the Canon Pro-1000 samples started in late November, 2016. It took a while to raise enough funds to independently purchase a unit, but donations from the printmaking community did make it happen.  By November of 2017, there will be over 50 megalux hours of exposure accumulated on those samples, not enough to totally complete all testing, but more than enough to publish solid trend lines and compare to other systems like the older Canon Lucia inks and the latest Epson HD inks. This one year work schedule therefore represents less time to produce solid print longevity results than the time this printer model has been on the market...just sayin' ;)

best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10089
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Canon iPF Pro-4000: The Bloom is Off the Rose?
« Reply #15 on: January 17, 2017, 04:21:08 PM »

.............This one year work schedule therefore represents less time to produce solid print longevity results than the time this printer model has been on the market...just sayin' ;)

best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

Sure, I hear what you are "just sayin' ", but I wouldn't compare the nimble, self-directed nature of a one-man enterprise versus a behemoth like Canon that has a set of (extremely cautious) corporate principles, procedures, processes and legal bumpf that need to be run through a number of departments horizontally and vertically for just about everything it does. I'm not trying to make excuses for them because, as I said, I would have liked to have seen this kind of stuff published much earlier, but I think we also need to recognize the huge differences of its modus operandi and perhaps differences of priorities, compared with folks like you and me.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

John Hollenberg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 916
Re: Canon iPF Pro-4000: The Bloom is Off the Rose?
« Reply #16 on: January 19, 2017, 11:05:29 PM »

Just a note that Scott updated his comments again and is more specific about which papers are problematic (in his opinion):

http://www.on-sight.com/canon-ipf-pro-4000-review/
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10089
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Canon iPF Pro-4000: The Bloom is Off the Rose?
« Reply #17 on: January 19, 2017, 11:16:27 PM »

Just a note that Scott updated his comments again and is more specific about which papers are problematic (in his opinion):

http://www.on-sight.com/canon-ipf-pro-4000-review/

I've used Canon ProLuster and Premium Fine Art Polished Rag in both the Pro-1000 and Pro-2000 (same print head and inkset) and I can't replicate those ugly results he shows. Lighting of course would make a big difference and as I said before, I prefer to look at prints under lighting that shows them correctly.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

John Hollenberg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 916
Re: Canon iPF Pro-4000: The Bloom is Off the Rose?
« Reply #18 on: July 03, 2017, 02:36:19 PM »

Scott has again updated his review with very specific information about bronzing and how to avoid it using the correct media type.  See July, 2017 update at the end of his review:

http://www.on-sight.com/canon-ipf-pro-4000-review/

Logged

dhachey

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
Re: Canon iPF Pro-4000: The Bloom is Off the Rose?
« Reply #19 on: July 04, 2017, 12:10:29 PM »

Mark, is there any information about the chemical structures of the dyes and pigments used in the various inksets?  From this it may be possible to design more rapid techniques to estimate (and evaluate) longevity and various degradation processes.  I couldn't really find much in the chemical literature, but I suspect manufacturers treat this as proprietary information. 

IMHO, Canon management made a calculated decision that print permanence figures for its newest ink set will hardly make or break the sales quotas on its newest line of imagePrograf 1000, 2000, and 4000 printers. Canon management probably believes photographers see "pigmented ink" in the spec sheet, and that's good enough to assure the customer on any and all print permanence issues. If only it were that simple :)

Some print samples made with the latest Canon Lucia Pro-11 ink set on a few different media are now in test at Aardenburg Imaging & Archives

http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/portfolio/inks-and-media-testing-2017/

Some truly independent results with definitive answers are in the works.

kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up