Dot Pattern on Canon iPF8100

[tyleerb]

I'm having an issue with my Canon iPF8100 where the dot pattern of the printer is very apparent in B&W photos. You can see it with the naked eye from about a foot away and it becomes VERY pronounced with a loupe. From further away it's not as much of a problem but it does add a bit of a haze to the photo and I am printing mostly 5x7 or smaller so viewing distance will be close.

I'm printing through the plug-in out of Photoshop CS4 onto Harman Matt FB Mp Warmtone paper. All of my settings are set to their highest.
ie.
Media Type - Fine Art Heavyweight Photo
Input Resolution to printer - High Accuracy 600ppi (the highest I can choose, I suspect this might be causing the problem)
Input bit to plug-in - Highest Gradation 16bit
Print Mode - High (High Precision)
Output Profile is Harman Supplied
Matching Method - Perceptual
All additional settings are flat (0)

I start with a 300dpi 16 bit file that has NOT been upsized and the "dots" are not apparent in the image even at 200%

I'm very happy with the tones but I cannot tolerate the dot pattern.

Has anyone else run into a problem like this on this particular printer or any other high end printer? Any ideas as to what could be causing it?

I have tried printing straight from photoshop with no plug-in and also from lightroom but I'm still having the same problem. It's not that apparent on graphic images like paintings or graphic art where there are large chunks of solid or semi-solid color. It just becomes an issue with the b&w photos where there should be a smooth continuous tone.

[Scott Martin]

The "print mode" has the greatest effect on the dot pattern and I believe "highest" is the highest resolution setting (2400dpi with 32 passes) with the finest dot pattern. I don't have the 8100 plug-in installed on my laptop to play with at the moment while I'm traveling but isn't there a media selection that let's you select this "highest" setting? Perhaps "Heavyweight SemiGloss Photo Paper"? Also, have you done a nozzle check? Is the firmware and software up to date?

I have some b&w prints of the same image printed on the same paper on Epson, HP and Canon printers that I like to show to clients and the dot pattern and fine detail on all three are excellent. You shouldn't be disappointed. Problematic at a foot away sounds like something is not right.

[tyleerb]

All great suggestions that slipped my mind....

But none of them solved my problem. I was able to find a setting that allowed "Highest" but it looked exactly the same.

I went back to my regular paper/printer settings and updated all my software, plugins, drivers and firmware. I then did the aggressive nozzle clean, a Head alignment and a "calibration" all on auto.
None of this provided any improvement to my prints.

I have a call in to the tech guy that I bought the printer from but he doesn't seem to be any help. All he keeps telling me is that he can print stuff fine on his printer and he's 100% sure harman made a bad profile which in turn is causing this to happen to my prints.

Any other ideas from anyone, at this point I'm willing to try just about anything.

[Rob Reiter]

All great suggestions that slipped my mind....

But none of them solved my problem. I was able to find a setting that allowed "Highest" but it looked exactly the same.

I went back to my regular paper/printer settings and updated all my software, plugins, drivers and firmware. I then did the aggressive nozzle clean, a Head alignment and a "calibration" all on auto.
None of this provided any improvement to my prints.

I have a call in to the tech guy that I bought the printer from but he doesn't seem to be any help. All he keeps telling me is that he can print stuff fine on his printer and he's 100% sure harman made a bad profile which in turn is causing this to happen to my prints.

Any other ideas from anyone, at this point I'm willing to try just about anything.

Go to our website at www.lightroom.com and use the ftp upload link to upload a 5x7 crop of your full  image. I'll print it on our 8100 with our custom profile on that paper and mail it to you. When it's uploaded, call or send an email with the mailing address.

[ares]

On these Canon printers coarse dithering is the classic sign of slightly incorrect paper feed.

If you haven't already done so, do a manual banding adjustment for every paper you use. It requires two sheet of paper (even A4 will do), and you must use the same paper on wich you are going to print. Note that the adjustment is per media type: this means that you have to repeat it for every media type you use. Also, since the correct settings are different for different papers, you can't use the same media type to print on more than one paper.

If that doesn't solve the problem, do an automatic head aligment. You need to do this only once, but use an high quality glossy media.

Finally, if nothing improves, have your printer checked by Canon. There are reports of mechanical issues that can cause the sort of trouble you are facing.

[Scott Martin]

All great suggestions that slipped my mind....But none of them solved my problem.

Shoot, well you might have an unusual problem on your hands - quite possiblly a paper feed issue as ares mentioned.

I have a call in to the tech guy that I bought the printer from but he doesn't seem to be any help.

Call the Canon 1-800-423-2366 iPF support line. They are fantastic.

[tyleerb]

Update on my progress....

I gave Canon a call, and yes they are great.

I ended up doing every calibration and adjustment I could and burning a lot of expensive paper in the process  
I also tried prints on other papers with the same image. Turns out as the paper gets glossier the problem becomes less apparent. To the point where printing on Canon Glossy Photographic 240 requires looking through a loupe to see the pattern and even then it's difficult to detect.

After talking to Canon they came to the conclusion that the paper is not compatible with the inkset, or should I say dyeset. It's a real shame because I love the tones the paper produces and the base color. I'm still not 100% convinced this is the answer and I'm awaiting Rob's sample before I draw any concrete conclusions.