Canon IPF 6300 / 8300 Print Samples, How Did They Do That?

[Gemmtech]

I ordered some sample prints from Canon as I have done with Epson in the past.  The Epson prints that I have received were all "real" meaning there was some GD (rear lights on the Ferrari) the pigment ink did seem to lay on top of the high gloss papers and the matte papers looked great.  Yesterday I received 3 sample prints from Canon that were printed using the IPF6350 and I was a little surprised, not by the matte print which looked great but by the semi-gloss and glossy prints, there was no GD, no bronzing, just nice looking prints.  I was most surprised by the glossy print, it looked very nice, no, it wasn't like a glossy dye ink print, but it was close enough not to matter most of the time.  I have many Epson glossy prints and they don't look nearly is good.  My question is to those who own the Canon printers, is this reality or has Canon produced a print that was doctored?  I have never seem a pigment ink print on glossy media that looked great.  Do the Canon prints have GD and or bronzing?  What about blown highlights such as a bright sunlight scene or waves crashing down on the beach?

 

[Scott Martin]

Do the Canon prints have GD and or bronzing? 

All pigmented inks sit on, the surface and have some amount of GD and bronzing, relative to silver halide printing. Increases use of polymers in the inksets encapsulates the pigments so as to cut down on GD and bronzing.  From my experience with all the latest printers, Canon's latest Luchia EX inkset has the least about of GD and bronzing of the three brands.  As for bronzing, its darn minimized everywhere but the blue ink, where it's still quite present. Any print manufacturer is going to make sure their test prints use hand picked images that make their printer's advantages shine. So for a fair test you really need to profile all the printers you'd like to compare with the same profiling technology and print the same evaluation images on all printers. You can also print the same evaluation images with the printer manufacturers profiles but it's important to separate printer performance comparisons from canned profile comparisons.

What about blown highlights such as a bright sunlight scene or waves crashing down on the beach?

The highlights are the areas where Epson's HDR and HP's z3200 inksets shows GD the most. This photo should give you a feel for this:

http://www.on-sight.com/images/3BrandPrinterComparisonGlossDiffBronzing_full.jpg

[Gemmtech]

I realize that all manufacturers are going to send out their best images, that's why I was surprised at how different the Canon glossy prints look compared to the Epson glossy prints.  The Canon prints don't look like the ink is sitting on top of the paper, they almost look like a dye inkjet print.  All of the Epson sample prints have either GD or bronzing on their semi-gloss or glossy papers.  I thought owners of the Canon printers could shed some light since I haven't read anywhere that the Canon printers were that much better than the Epson units.

[Geoff Wittig]

I own a Canon iPF6300; I've also owned an Epson 7600 and HP Z3100. No question, inkjet printers keep getting better in terms of bronzing, gloss differential and metamerism. The 7600 was pretty bad in terms of bronzing, to the extent that I settled on matte cotton rag papers exclusively. The Z3100 was better, but there's no way to ignore the bronzing at shallow reflection angles. The iPF printers are much better.

At least in my experience, bronzing and gloss differential are very paper-specific, even from one particular printer. I've pretty much standardized on Hahnemüle Photorag baryta, partly for the drop-dead d-max and excellent gamut with the iPF6300, but also because there is virtually no bronzing at all on this paper. I see a bit of bronzing on Canon's own satin paper, especially in light blues.

Hope that helps.

[keith_cooper]

I realize that all manufacturers are going to send out their best images, that's why I was surprised at how different the Canon glossy prints look...

You don't say where you are, but in the UK, some prints are supplied by http://www.sampleprint.co.uk/

This company isn't connected with Canon directly, since they recently asked if they could add a couple of my images to the range of samples. This came about after I originally wrote up a review of the iPF6300.

The images of mine have not been adjusted, as far as I can see, from the versions I sent them.

Having recently purchased an iPF8300, the better surface look of the prints with the latest inks were a factor in deciding to get it.

[Gemmtech]

Keith, the images that I received are a green motorcycle with flames by Jim DiVitale  www.DiVitalephotography.com and that is printed on Canon Glossy Photographic Paper 240gsm.  I've looked at the print under lots of different light sources and just today I was able to manipulate the print enough to see a little bit of the pigment ink sitting on the paper affect, it's so slight as to be a non-issue because of how I have to hold the print. As I stated before, the dye prints still rule for glossy, but this one is getting close. The print on Canon Premium Photo Luster is perfect, no GD at all unless I'm missing something, the image is by David Stoecklein and it's an image of an elderly gentleman wearing a hat.  The last image was printed on Canon Fine Art Photo Rag 188gsm by Hahnemuhle, image of a bride by Clay Blackmore.  Overall I'm very impressed with the photographs.

[keith_cooper]

Thanks for those details

I'm certainly finding that the 8300 is giving some very nice prints :-)

[Gemmtech]

Keith,  What worries me; are the prints that I received indicative of what I will produce most of the time or are these prints simply "Ringers"?  Epson sample glossy prints show the ink on top of the paper (bronzing) and there is some GD on their semi-gloss prints.  I haven't read any reviews that claim the Canon prints on glossy / semigloss are any better than the Epson prints.  Canon dye prints are actually glossier than Epson dye prints, but it's close enough.  I have to buy within the next couple days, just trying to make a final decision.

[keith_cooper]

Whilst I don't know the actual prints you're getting (is this in the US?) I've found that dropping the highlights a small amount makes any differential much more difficult to notice.

This is a few test prints from when I had a 6300 to review - you can see a bit of differential in these prints (Canon Satin 240), but I did take the picture to emphasise it.