ipf5000 output quality

[neil snape]

The print samples I have from the recent, not the first prototypes 5000 are absolutely grain free at viewing distances the prints are made for. In fact I find them too smooth, lacking of bite compared to Epson or HP.

[Dale Allyn]

The print samples I have from the recent, not the first prototypes 5000 are absolutely grain free at viewing distances the prints are made for. In fact I find them too smooth, lacking of bite compared to Epson or HP.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=81715\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thank you for the additional input, Neil. I'm looking forward to receiving my sample prints. I've not heard this remark of the Canon iPF 5000 before. I've ordered a sample from InkjetArt from the Canon and hope that it's a useful sample.

[Gary Damaskos]

Did you bother to tune the file for the printer? I mean statments like this suggest that the file has nothing to do with the print, or that different printers actually do not require (minor?) adjustments to accomodate the uniqueness of that model /brand printer (but they do). Or am I to believe (which I do not) that the Epson produces more bite than a Canon period. Education not promotion please, even if that was not your intention. I do not mean to pick on you - but folks, the file matters, and even changing papers within the same printer means changing your profile, or your sharpenss, etc... if you care about maximizing the result towards what you want (and of course most  of you do). So things are not so Black and White (between color printers output).
rant over
Gary

The print samples I have from the recent, not the first prototypes 5000 are absolutely grain free at viewing distances the prints are made for. In fact I find them too smooth, lacking of bite compared to Epson or HP.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=81715\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[K.C.]

The print samples I have from the recent, not the first prototypes 5000 are absolutely grain free at viewing distances the prints are made for. In fact I find them too smooth, lacking of bite compared to Epson or HP.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=81715\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sounds like a Tri-X versus Plus-X preference to me.

Without any real information on the images, and a side-by-side comparison with an Epson print, your statement really says little if anything.

(Personally I prefer HP5   )

[tbonanno]

Tony, please do post back when you return to your printer after your trip. It would be so very helpful to learn from your experience.

Regards, Dale
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=81696\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Dale,

I'll be back in Santa Fe on Oct. 27th.  Will crank up the iPF5000 and report my findings regarding any need to do a nozzle cleaning, etc.

Tony

[tonywh]

Had the printer since june and are well into the second set, no grain problems. We are also away for a upto a week and sometimes the printer is left on or turned of. On returning I just print without thinking about it. When we first got the the printer we printed a 24x16 as a test, straight of the printer on kodak paper which was seen by a master printer of 35 yrs standing. He was knocked out about the quality and that inkjet printers could do that level of work.

tony

[michael]

I've had an iPF5000 and an Epson 4800 sitting next to each other in my office for the past 4 months. I have used them both intermittently on different printing assignments and can say that to my eye output is essentially identical, without a direct side-by-side comparison.

When such a comparison is carefully done the only difference that I can see is that the Canon shows somewhat wider gamut (easily also seen as well in a profile gamut comparison on ColorThink).

This conclusion was reinforced when a half dozen of the industries leading experts on inkjet printing (including some who are firmly in the Epson "camp") spent a couple of hours at my place a while back, shortly after the 5000 was announced. We pixel peeped for about an hour, on prints done with different substrates, and we all pretty much agreed with the conclusion that I just wrote above.

Over these four months I have made many hundreds of prints, and never had a head clog. The printer is left on all the time (even when I am away travelling) and once a day it runs a brief self-check cleaning cycle. This is recommended by Canon as the best way to treat the printer. Ink wastage from this is unmeasurable.

In that same time the 4800 has clocged a couple of times and I've had to run cleaning cycles that do use a fair amount of ink. No really serious clogs though that require a power cleaning.

My bottom line is that for anyone needing a 17" desktop printer the Epson 5000 is the best choice, but. The but is that the documentation is truely dreadful, and the printer is a nag, requiring that you set both the front panel and the driver with the same information when changing papers, and if you don't get it just right, it either nags or refuses to print.

This will change in a few weeks when one of the major RIP makers announces their product for the 5000, and one will be able to comopletely bypass the Canon firmware and driver.

Michael

Ps: I have recently sold my Epson 4800, as the Canon 5000 does the same job, just somewhat better.

[Tim Gray]

My bottom line is that for anyone needing a 17" desktop printer the Epson 5000 is the best choice, but. The but is that the documentation is truely dreadful, and the printer is a nag, requiring that you set both the front panel and the driver with the same information when changing papers, and if you don't get it just right, it either nags or refuses to print.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=81952\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm sure the reference to Epson in this paragraph is just a "senior's moment".  

[photographist]

I'm sure the reference to Epson in this paragraph is just a "senior's moment". 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=81957\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's the sprit of Epsons past that are out to befuddle him......

[ronno]

I can see is that the Canon shows somewhat wider gamut (easily also seen as well in a profile gamut comparison on ColorThink).

..................


My bottom line is that for anyone needing a 17" desktop printer the Epson 5000 is the best choice, but. The but is that the documentation is truely dreadful, and the printer is a nag, requiring that you set both the front panel and the driver with the same information when changing papers, and if you don't get it just right, it either nags or refuses to print.

.................

Ps: I have recently sold my Epson 4800, as the Canon 5000 does the same job, just somewhat better.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=81952\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Michael, how specifically does the wider gamut show itself in the prints you have made?

Thanks.
-ron

[michael]

Senior moment. Who me?

The wider gamut is most obviously seen in the blues, where there is much less of a cyan cast than seen with Epsons. The 12 inks addition of Red. Blue, and Green inks does make a difference, but its most visible in the blues.

Michael

[bjanes]

Senior moment. Who me?

The wider gamut is most obviously seen in the blues, where there is much less of a cyan cast than seen with Epsons. The 12 inks addition of Red. Blue, and Green inks does make a difference, but its most visible in the blues.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=82004\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Michael,

It is a bit perplexing that you say that the Epson is the best choice but that you have sold yours and are apparently using the Canon.

Bill

[DarkPenguin]

Michael,

It is a bit perplexing that you say that the Epson is the best choice but that you have sold yours and are apparently using the Canon.

Bill
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=82041\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

He said the "Epson 5000" meaning the "Canon 5000" and not the "Epson 4800".  That would be the "senior moment" mentioned above.

[jonreid]

I have been using the ipf5000 for the last couple of months to print photobooks.  I also have an Epson R2400 and while the Epson is slightly sharper (when you look close), the Canon gives the better overall image quality for my application.

I was not present when my ipf5000 was installed but I believe a auto-head adjustment was run then.  However I recently did a manual adjustment and this has reduced the 'grain' slightly - most people would not see the difference.  I am not sure if the improvement is because doing it by eye is more accurate or whether the original auto-alignment was done on a different paper ?

Overall the 5000 is my best option at the moment, the only issue I have is that it has very visible banding in the trailing edge when printing on sheets unless you run on the highest resolution (slow).  I am hoping this is something Canon will fix with a firmware upgrade........?

[David White]

I am not sure if the improvement is because doing it by eye is more accurate or whether the original auto-alignment was done on a different paper ?
I am hoping this is
Overall the 5000 is my best option at the moment, the only issue I have is that it has very visible banding in the trailing edge when printing on sheets unless you run on the highest resolution (slow).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=82048\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I believe that the recommendation to to load up the printer with the paper that you will be normally printing on for the head alignment procedure.  I print on a variety of papers and haven't noticed any differences in quality between one paper and another.

I've never seen the banding issue.

[jonreid]

I've never seen the banding issue.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=82112\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What version of firmware do you have in your ipf5000 ?  I have seen the banding issue on more than one printer locally so I know it is not just mine.

The local Canon distributor has acknowledged the problem but has no idea how to fix it so have just escalated it up the chain.

I wonder if we have an older firmware version ??

[serf]

I've been using the iPF5000 for a few weeks, coming from an Epson 2200 as a novice, more or less.  The print output is excellent.  I printed a reference image from Calumet's Brilliant paper web page using the posted profile, and the print was awesome.  But there are problems already mentioned above which I won't repeat.  Some additional issues/questions:

1.  I simultaneously switched to a Mac Pro (because my XP died & I had heard Mac is a great environment for graphics) only to find that the Canon driver does not work on Intel Macs (only the Photoshop Plug-In works on Intel Macs).  I'm not aware of a current correction or work around, until if/when Canon issues a driver update (or ColorByte issues a new version supporting iPF5000).

2.  The printer frequently reports that the magenta cartridge is not present, when it is present.  This requires opening the lid, pulling the cartridge & reinserting, which results (so far) in re-recognition.  I don't know, yet, if this is just a bad cartridge.  I'll try ordering a replacement or calling Canon support.

3.  Can you get spare spindles for roll paper?  If so, where?

4.  I had banding at the tail 1/2 inch of prints, called Canon support and they had me run, as I recall, a nozzle check & either that or adjusting to a different paper type, which I also did, cured the problem.

[chickman]

I had the problem with grain when I first got my printer.  After performing the head allignment the problem went away and the output looks great.

[tbonanno]

Tony, please do post back when you return to your printer after your trip. It would be so very helpful to learn from your experience.

Regards, Dale
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=81696\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

HI Dale,

Just returned from my trip..  Printer not used for more than two weeks.  Powered it up and it did some kind of cleaning exercise on its own.  Did a nozzle check.. Perfect.. Made some prints 11x14 and 13x19 cut sheet and some 16" canvas roll.. all prints looked great.  No nozzle issues at all.  Makes me smile   .

Tony

[K.C.]

Printer not used for more than two weeks.  Powered it up and it did some kind of cleaning exercise on its own.  Did a nozzle check.. Perfect.. Made some prints 11x14 and 13x19 cut sheet and some 16" canvas roll.. all prints looked great.  No nozzle issues at all.

As a professional printer should work.

Now if Epson introduces another printer and it still has the same issues, clogging etc., what will be their excuse ?