Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: Cornfield on December 04, 2017, 09:12:19 am
-
Considering the Canon iPF6400 or the HP Z3200
Anyone here used both of these or have thoughts on how they compare. Two key areas for me are print quality and reliability.
-
Speaking of the Canon, why do you want yesteryear's technology? If print quality is one of your criteria, the new Canon Pro-2000 makes visibly better prints than the iPF6400.
-
"If print quality is one of your criteria, the new Canon Pro-2000 makes visibly better prints than the iPF6400.'
If you don't care about ink (print) longevity.
-
I just put in a Pro-2000, and, with an upcoming show, have printed nearly 150 feet of paper in a couple of weeks. Relatively cheap by 24" printer standards, easy to set up (I thought so, but I've dealt with a lot of big printers - there are a few things that can trip you up if you haven't dealt with them before). Beautiful images characterized by unusually deep blacks and no gloss differential (set chroma optimizer to "overall"). If you haven't dealt with big printers before, there are a couple of places to look before you leap.
It's brand-new, so I know nothing yet about reliability, but a friend's iPF-6100 is approaching 10 years old, and has had only one set of new heads in that time (with the sporadic use typical of individual photographers).
Keith Cooper at Northlight Images has both an excellent review of the Pro-2000 and an article on the setup.
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-imageprograf-pro-2000-printer-review/
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-pro2000-setup/
Mark Segal has reviewed the Pro-2000 here on Luminous, with a lot of technical information about color profiles...
https://luminous-landscape.com/canon-pro-2000-review-and-related-items-of-interest/
I have a detailed (but nothing like Keith's) setup report and a first prints report here on Luminous - both should still be on the first page of the printer forum. After the show I'm working on, I'll post some more thoughts from all the recent prints.
-
from kevinmcdnyc: "If you don't care about ink (print) longevity."
That's a good question which I don't think is resolved yet. Canon has published some information but it is completely unsupported: https://support.usa.canon.com/kb/index?page=content&id=ART164634&actp=RSS. There is some evidence that Wilhelm was testing the new inkset but I couldn't find any results, nor did I see anything in the Aardenburg database.
-
Has anyone tried emailing Henry to inquire about the state of the tests? I tried the info@ email included in his recent Epson longevity study but it bounced. I would imagine someone on this forum has been in contact with him in the past?
-
How's you know Canon even submitted samples? They usually do this before they release the printers. That is the sane thing to do. I suspect they didn't like the outcome. But you never know. I would Call Canon if you really want to find out and see what they say. They may not want to admit it if Epson is kicking their butts. Best to wait for Marks tests anyway. But all this kept me from buying a new Canon. I went with the Z on sale
Has anyone tried emailing Henry to inquire about the state of the tests? I tried the info@ email included in his recent Epson longevity study but it bounced. I would imagine someone on this forum has been in contact with him in the past?
e
-
https://www.pdnonline.com/gear/printing/can-photo-prints-really-last-a-lifetime/
That article indicates Lucia Pro is in test as of 19 months ago.
-
We'll see. That article was May 2016. I really do hope Canon has not gone backwards because I'm sold on thermal technology and that inkset is up there with Epson in gamut.
https://www.pdnonline.com/gear/printing/can-photo-prints-really-last-a-lifetime/
That article indicates Lucia Pro is in test as of 19 months ago.
-
We'll see. That article was May 2016. I really do hope Canon has not gone backwards because I'm sold on thermal technology and that inkset is up there with Epson in gamut.
It depends. The gamut volumes of the profiles I've measured for the Canon Pro series printers are wider than those for the same papers in the Epson SC-P800 printer, but narrower than similar for the Epson SC-P5000/7000/9000 printers. That said, whether these plus or minus differences of gamut volumes actually make meaningful differences to print appearance depends very much on particular hues and saturation in the photos.
-
If results of testing on Lucia Pro inkset were good, we would have heard about it by now.
-
If results of testing on Lucia Pro inkset were good, we would have heard about it by now.
"by now" - yes agreed, more than enough time has gone by; and what "kills deader" than perhaps warranted is lack of transparency - always leads people to think the worst. At least I haven't seen in depth technical reports from either Wilhelm or Aardenburg (in each case likely different reasons) for either Canon or Epson latest materials.
-
"At least I haven't seen in depth technical reports from either Wilhelm or Aardenburg (in each case likely different reasons) for either Canon or Epson latest materials."
Actually there is a full report on Epson's latest P7000 and P9000 on Wilhelm now –
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/Epson_P7000_and_P9000.html
-
Super - thanks. That should also apply to the SC-P5000 (same inks). The dark storage numbers are very impressive. Wish we had similar kind of reports for the Canon Pro printers.
-
You're welcome, Mark! And I completely agree on Canon and yes, these numbers on the Epson are impressive.
-
And here's the one from Aardenburg: http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/epson-uchd-versus-k3-inks/
-
And here's the one from Aardenburg: http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/epson-uchd-versus-k3-inks/
Yup - but that one isn't for the HDX inkset applying to the larger format printers (SC-P 5000/7000/9000). Perhaps the results would be similar, as HDX adds another couple of colours, but I certainly don't know for sure.
-
Yup - but that one isn't for the HDX inkset applying to the larger format printers (SC-P 5000/7000/9000). Perhaps the results would be similar, as HDX adds another couple of colours, but I certainly don't know for sure.
My understanding is that the inks that are used are the same as in the larger printers, especially the yellow which is the one most sensitive to fading, so the results should be comparable.
-
My understanding is that the inks that are used are the same as in the larger printers, especially the yellow which is the one most sensitive to fading, so the results should be comparable.
Your understanding is 8/10ths correct - the other 2/10ths are Orange and Green which are part of the 5000/7000/9000 inkset, but not the 600/800. So as Aardenburg's report covers two papers for the 600, for completeness we would need to know the behaviour of Orange and Green as well, which his reports don't cover because they aren't part of the 600 inkset.
-
As Mark has pointed out in the past, yellow is the big problem that Epson has had in the last series, and really every since the discontinued acrylic encapsulated Epson "archival" cf yellow that was so stable ( and dull ) in the 10 k printers we used 17 years ago. With the improved yellow, the yellow content of the green and orange is improved also , though there is a lot less of it than the pure yellow channel. The last hd series was way behind Canon in that regard and both of them were behind Hp. It still astonishes me that the hp Vivera yellow can be so strong and maintain that longevity.
It will be very interesting to see exactly how the new Lucia inks pan out. Course we've been saying that for a year and a half now.
Your understanding is 8/10ths correct - the other 2/10ths are Orange and Green which are part of the 5000/7000/9000 inkset, but not the 600/800. So as Aardenburg's report covers two papers for the 600, for completeness we would need to know the behaviour of Orange and Green as well, which his reports don't cover because they aren't part of the 600 inkset.
-
One extra complication to the Lucia Pro inkset is that the clearcoat is, at least theoretically, protective - prints should last longer with Chroma Optimzer on Overall than on Auto... One more variable to consider!
-
One extra complication to the Lucia Pro inkset is that the clearcoat is, at least theoretically, protective - prints should last longer with Chroma Optimzer on Overall than on Auto... One more variable to consider!
I don't recall seeing that Canon has made any claim to increased fade resistance attributable to the application of chroma optimizer. Have you?
-
Wilhelm’s test does not test for orange and green inks, so the Wilhelm test protocol cannot distinguish any differences between the HD and HDX ink sets, whereas the Aardenburg test protocol can and does...as it did when tests were made comparing the older Epson K3 versus HDR performance including channel blending effects of different drivers like ImagePrint that substitute more orange ink in the skin tone colors.
Refer to the following article on Lula:
( THE WEAKEST LINK by John Pannozzo (https://luminous-landscape.com/the-weakest-link/) )
(https://luminous-landscape.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/anon.jpg)
There are other problematic issues with the Wilhelm ratings for HD and HDX inks and media as well. High OBA content papers generally fair better than OBA free papers in the Wilhelm ratings due to biases in how the test criteria score the results. Shows up clearly in the 12 tested media cited in this latest Wilhelm study on Epson’s latest inks and media.
-
Mark L, can you point to where Wilhelm says they don't test for Orange and Green in the new HDX inkset? I reviewed the latest report for the Epson SC-P7000/9000 and didn't see any such mention, except to say that the inkset includes those colours. If their tests don't include these inks then they are not really telling the story for these printer models.
-
Mark L, can you point to where Wilhelm says they don't test for Orange and Green in the new HDX inkset? I reviewed the latest report for the Epson SC-P7000/9000 and didn't see any such mention, except to say that the inkset includes those colours. If their tests don't include these inks then they are not really telling the story for these printer models.
Hi Mark (S),
It's common knowledge, that the Wilhelm densitometric criteria set, and the 9 color patches included in the test are well documented on the Wilhelm site and his book, and the test itself dates back to the 1970s, right?. The 9 color patches measured in the Wilhelm densitometric test are media white, two density levels of cyan, two of magenta, and two of yellow. That’s it. Wilhelm’s test worked well in the 1980s and 1990s when virtually all color photographic prints were made with silver halide wet processes that form only cyan, magenta, and yellow dyes. It falls short and even misranks product performance when testing modern multi-colorant inkjet systems where any given color may be produced with more than just cyan, magenta, and yellow colorants.
Nice to see you again, sir - hope you are well.
Best,
Mark
-
I wanted to insert the obligatory plug for the DeLorean of Printers, the Z3200ps:
The ranking issue for which pigmented ink set is most fade resistant overall is made much more complicated by the dramatically non linear fade characteristics of Epson’s latest inks. The HD/HDX yellow starts out well which gives Epson’s new inks sets superior performance compared to the older sets using K3 yellow. However, HP retains a linear fade curve as exposure doses increase, whereas Epson’s new HD/HDX begins to cave with increasing exposure. HP Vivera is undoubtedly in first place still by a comfortable margin. Canon versus Epson? Anybody’s guess right now, but given Canon’s near dead silence on the longevity performance of its latest LUCIA Pro ink set, it’s unlikely to meet or exceed either Epson’s newest HD/HDX ink set or the HP Vivera.
Delorean or Tucker or Edsel? Either way, Long may she run!!!
Viva Vivera!!!
Mark
-
Hi Mark (S),
It's common knowledge, that the Wilhelm densitometric criteria set, and the 9 color patches included in the test are well documented on the Wilhelm site and his book, and the test itself dates back to the 1970s, right?. The 9 color patches measured in the Wilhelm densitometric test are media white, two density levels of cyan, two of magenta, and two of yellow. That’s it. Wilhelm’s test worked well in the 1980s and 1990s when virtually all color photographic prints were made with silver halide wet processes that form only cyan, magenta, and yellow dyes. It falls short and even misranks product performance when testing modern multi-colorant inkjet systems where any given color may be produced with more than just cyan, magenta, and yellow colorants.
Nice to see you again, sir - hope you are well.
Best,
Mark
Thank you sir I'm very well.
As for "common knowledge" - I don't know how common because this is the first time I hear they are not testing what their reports give one to believe they should be testing. Given how Wilhelm's website is (or isn't), it's not clear whether their published descriptions of what they are actually doing with the current crop of printers and inks is up to date. I wouldn't assume that they haven't up-dated their methodologies to deal with what they are supposed to be testing, unless there were tangible evidence that this is the case.
Anyhow, regardless of that status, and in the context of this thread, what we have on the fade resistance issue for the Epson P7000 is better than the information we have for the Canon Pro-2000, so to the extent the question of fade resistance is important to the O/P's decision, there is an asymmetry of information that - unless one could argue it's worse than useless - is at least somewhat skewed in Epson's favour if only because there is more transparency of information. People can make what interpretation of it they can. Or let me put it this way - even if the dark storage data were wrong by half, I for one would still be comfortable with this.
-
Thank you sir I'm very well.
As for "common knowledge" - I don't know how common because this is the first time I hear they are not testing what their reports give one to believe they should be testing. Given how Wilhelm's website is (or isn't), it's not clear whether their published descriptions of what they are actually doing with the current crop of printers and inks is up to date. I wouldn't assume that they haven't up-dated their methodologies to deal with what they are supposed to be testing, unless there were tangible evidence that this is the case.
Anyhow, regardless of that status, and in the context of this thread, what we have on the fade resistance issue for the Epson P7000 is better than the information we have for the Canon Pro-2000, so to the extent the question of fade resistance is important to the O/P's decision, there is an asymmetry of information that - unless one could argue it's worse than useless - is at least somewhat skewed in Epson's favour if only because there is more transparency of information. People can make what interpretation of it they can. Or let me put it this way - even if the dark storage data were wrong by half, I for one would still be comfortable with this.
Excerpt from Footnote 2 in the WIR report...2) There are currently no ISO or ANSI standards which provide a means of evaluating the permanence of inkjet or other digitally-printed photographs. As a member of ISO WG-5/TG-3 permanence standards group, WIR is actively involved in the development of a new series of ISO standards for testing digital prints. However, as of January 2010, no dates have been announced for the completion and publication of these new ISO standards. The WIR Display Permanence Ratings (DPR) given here are based on accelerated light stability tests conducted at 25 klux with glass-filtered cool white fluorescent illumination with the sample plane air temperature maintained at 24°C and 60% relative humidity. Data were extrapolated to a display condition of 450 lux for 12 hours per day using the Wilhelm Imaging Research, Inc. “Visually-Weighted Endpoint Criteria Set v3.0.” and represent the years of display for easily noticeable fading, changes in color balance, and/or staining to occur.
The tip off that the Wllhelm test has not been modified is in the phrase “Visually-Weighted Endpoint Criteria Set v3.0.” You can’t modify the selection of color patches (and their corresponding density readings) chosen for the test procedure without modifying those criteria. WIR would have to be on V3.1 or 4.0, etc. to have changed this legacy test method in order to accommodate orange or green patches in the instrumented evaluation. Not to say WIR didn’t subjectively assess HD versus HDX printed targets in this study, say for example, looking at some skin tone colors, but the ratings can’t incorporate those subjective results, otherwise, once again, the test wouldn’t objectively be based on the claimed WIR Criteria set 3.0.
Edit for spelling
-
Yup - saw that footnote - but how does it explain that Orange and Green inks are not evaluated in their testing? Maybe I'm a bit dense this evening, but I don't get it.
-
It doesn't matter whether he evaluated orange and green by themselves or not If skitones were shown in the tested sample, which they weren't. What is really important is yellow, and as Mark L. suggested the yellow is improved, up until a certain point, where it, unlike Vivera, begins to drop off fairly quickly. Why do we know this, certainly not from Henry, it's fro Mark McCormick, as usual, the real scientist in this realm, who follows a transparent rigorous method that you can actually understand.
Wilhelm's methodology is certainly antiquated and anything but open to anyone wanting to see a real progression over time. When a I saw his "years of display" figures for Epson Exhibition Fine Art I almost spit up my morning coffee. That will give you a good laugh, especially the black and white figures >300 years, he he. Maybie if your high values start at zone 5. Same with the rc stuff, total fiction. But it is good to see overall that the yellow has improved. Mark already told us that. So that's a confirmation that they are improved.
quote author=Mark D Segal link=topic=121968.msg1015147#msg1015147 date=1512515114]
Yup - saw that footnote - but how does it explain that Orange and Green inks are not evaluated in their testing? Maybe I'm a bit dense this evening, but I don't get it.
[/quote]
-
Yup - saw that footnote - but how does it explain that Orange and Green inks are not evaluated in their testing? Maybe I'm a bit dense this evening, but I don't get it.
It's really old technology and ISO standards just haven't been updated and to do so requires major hoops to accomplish it. Since it stands as the "prevailing technology" from ISO and ANSI standards, it is what it is.
There is a world of difference between WIR and Aardenburg approaches to testing. For one, Aardenburg refuses to accept ANY corporate sponsorship of ANY kind, no matter what, so you can always count on his results to be totally unbiased, totally objective and specifically scientific particularly as his process of evaluation is from a much more current and stringent model. I don't want to cast dispersions or get into innuendo at all, as everyone does what they can, but may I just say, of the two (or three) research "Institutions" out there, I prefer Aardenburg, which ironically is grossly underfunded because of the insistence of not accepting corporate sponsorship. When you consider that MHMG worked at the Smithsonian over 7 years (I believe) and was part of WIR in an early stage, and now operates on his own through Aardenburg, it is remarkable what he has been able to acomplish. My information comes from long discussions regarding color science theory, etc., which I've been most fortunate to benefit from, having opportunity to talk to him about his research. And of course, we both use Z3200ps printers for our own work, and I would guess that John Dean does as well, at least a fair amount of it, and there are many others who I won't mention because I don't know for a fact.
I don't think you're "dense" at all Mark, I just think that we've all drunk a lot of corporate Kool-Aid over the years, and have been subjected to what are now becoming viewed as "wild claims" of print permanence or longevity. Today, if the paper says archival or the print is referred to as "archival" in any way, it is end of story. A little like "organic" has taken over many products in the supermarket.
IMHO, I think it is better to err on the safe side, become intimately familiar with the science, particularly that which is cutting edge and not outdated or outmoded, yet accepted as gospel, and work from there. I expect you and others may disagree with me, but that's my position, and it's also my experience. I have absolutely had it with paper/ink combinations that won't hold up to proper scrutiny in the realm of longevity and fading. And on and on, I guess.
Take care, respectfully,
Mark
-
Hi Mark,
Basically I agree with all of this and I think it particularly important/useful that the community has the benefit of a truly independent focus on print fade resistance testing for which I very much respect Mark MC-G and the work he is doing.
At the same time I would *like to believe* that even though the prevalent ISO standard may be dated, when an institute such as Wilhelm says they are testing an inkset, they really are testing the whole inkset, not 8/10ths of it, otherwise that would be truly scandalous. Which of course leaves the question of the Canon inkset and why they've not allowed Wilhelm to publish ANYTHING. I can think of a couple of reasons for this (one fair and square, the other less so), but regardless, perhaps not helpful to either customer or manufacturer.
-
Hi Mark,
Basically I agree with all of this and I think it particularly important/useful that the community has the benefit of a truly independent focus on print fade resistance testing for which I very much respect Mark MC-G and the work he is doing.
At the same time I would *like to believe* that even though the prevalent ISO standard may be dated, when an institute such as Wilhelm says they are testing an inkset, they really are testing the whole inkset, not 8/10ths of it, otherwise that would be truly scandalous. Which of course leaves the question of the Canon inkset and why they've not allowed Wilhelm to publish ANYTHING. I can think of a couple of reasons for this (one fair and square, the other less so), but regardless, perhaps not helpful to either customer or manufacturer.
Mark, I know you to be a brilliant mind. Your years have brought about the most coveted commodity, which we know is wisdom. I trust you will drill down into this matter on your own and get to the bottom of it. And I believe as much as you want to believe one way, I also trust you have an open mind to facts which are in evidence. I've enjoyed our discussion, and hope you have as well.
Mark L
-
Hi Mark, thanks ever so much - I'm blushing; but I have to tell you - I've made inquiries about this matter and gotten as far as every one else has, ugh! And yes, I am of course always keen to take into account credible evidence; we are learning new things all the time and need to stay open-minded as realities evolve. Good discussion - yes. Cheers. Mark S.
-
My tests with the Canon Lucia Pro-11 inkset just reached the 70 megalux hour mark in light fade testing (equivalent to 35 years on the Wilhelm 450 lux/12 per day time scale). It takes about a year in accelerated light fade testing at Aardenburg to rack up 70Mlux hours of exposure, and it took nearly a year before that to fund the purchase of the printer. I hope that helps folks understand some of the lead times necessary in performing these kind of tests at Aardenburg.
Two of the three media I chose have already reached the lower Aardenburg conservation display rating limits, both around the 60 megalux hour mark, but the upper CDR limit hasn't yet been reached. The beauty of the I* metric is that it can give relevant color and tonal accuracy scores at any step along the way to higher and higher levels of fade, so I could have indeed posted some light fade resistance information on the Lucia Pro-11 ink set quite some ago. However, to conserve on limited funding, I have backed off on more regular publication schedules, and in so doing, the latest measurements are now turning up other very interesting facts/questions about the Canon Lucia Pro-11 ink set. Canon's latest Lucia Pro-11 ink formulation appears to have higher media interaction sensitivity than other pigment ink sets including older formulations like the Canon Lucia EX inks used in the Canon X300 and X400 series printer models. The sample printed on Moab Entrada Natural 300gsm is far outperforming the other two samples printed on Canon Pro Luster and Red River Palo Duro Soft Gloss. I feel it is good to take the tests out to higher exposure doses before publishing in order to try to get a better understanding of these apparent media interaction effects.
My sample size (just three different media) is going to be too small to give definitive conclusions about media sensitivity, but this initial Pro-11 ink study was originally designed as a paired comparison with Epson's HD ink set. Epson's HD inks printed on the same batches of media are handily outperforming the Lucia Pro-11 ink set on the two glossy media. Matte finish Moab Entrada results still to be determined because they are holding up much better on both ink sets. Nevertheless, the test results to date do suggest a larger media sensitivity exists for Lucia Pro-11 inks than what other pigmented ink sets show (they all have some media sensitivity). A larger study will eventually be required to tell the whole story.
kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
I emailed the reporter who wrote the article that stated WIR was evaluating the Lucia Pro ink set and he will ask for an update later this week. Will post whatever I hear.
-
My tests with the Canon Pro-11 inkset just reached the 70 megalux hour mark in light fade testing (equivalent to 35 years on the Wilhelm 450 lux/12 per day time scale). It takes about a year in accelerated light fade testing at Aardenburg to rack up 70Mlux hours of exposure, and it took nearly a year before that to fund the purchase of the printer. I hope that helps folks understand some of the lead times necessary in performing these kind of tests at Aardenburg.
Two of the three media I chose have already reached the lower Aardenburg conservation display rating limits, both around the 60 megalux hour mark, but the upper CDR limit hasn't yet been reached. The beauty of the I* metric is that it can give relevant color and tonal accuracy scores at any step along the way to higher and higher levels of fade, so I could have indeed posted some light fade resistance information on the Canon Pro-11 ink set quite some ago. However, to conserve on limited funding, I have backed off on more regular publication schedules, and in so doing, the latest measurements are now turning up other very interesting facts/questions about the Canon Pro-11 ink set. Canon's latest Pro-11 ink formulation appears to have higher media interaction sensitivity than other pigment ink sets including older formulations like the Canon Lucia EX inks used in the Canon X300 and X400 series printer models. The sample printed on Moab Entrada Natural 300gsm is far outperforming the other two samples printed on Canon Pro Luster and Red River Palo Duro Soft Gloss. I feel it is good to take the tests out to higher exposure doses before publishing in order to try to get a better understanding of these apparent media interaction effects.
My sample size (just three different media) is going to be too small to give definitive conclusions about media sensitivity, but this initial Pro-11 ink study was originally designed as a paired comparison with Epson's HD ink set. Epson's HD inks printed on the same batches of media are handily outperforming the Canon Pro-11 ink set on the two glossy media. Matte finish Moab Entrada results still to be determined because they are holding up much better on both ink sets. Nevertheless, the test results to date do suggest a larger media sensitivity exists for Lucia Pro-11 inks than what other pigmented ink sets show (they all have some media sensitivity). A larger study will eventually be required to tell the whole story.
kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Thank you very much for this information. It's much appreciated. I have a probably naive question which is maybe related to the media sensitivity of the Lucia Pro-11 inks you observe. What role play the media settings used to print the samples? Usually the recommendation to print on matte paper like the Entrada you used is "Highest Density Fine Art Paper" which for example uses the Largest Ink Load setting. Does this play a role?