I had 13x19 bw prints made from a very full scale file that I use to test all kinds of monochrome. I sent the file to different high-end labs . I had that file printed on the P2000, the 9570, 4100, The HP Z9, and I printed it myself with K7 ink in Epson 9890 matte media, and my Z3200 . I have test printed this file on my old 8300 with true black and white software which though it is not up to HP or Epson rgb QTR prints of that file it was ok but used a lot of yellow ink for neutral, and the warm monochrome always looked different with various light sources, so I rarely used it for best bw work.
All I can say is that the 4100 which was printed 16 bit rgb with a very good profile by people who know what they are doing, was the only print I would consider not workable for me. The one paper that I consider I have to use for monochrome gloss work is Platine. I don’t like the so called Alpha Cel.Baryta papers I’ve tried because they curl too much especially in roll and has other gloss issues like bronzing with bw. I need cotton and pigment whiteners. So that is what was used on all of them, Platine. I also had a color chart printed on the same paper to compare gamut, dither, etc on that media. The new Epson had the best gamut overall but not a deal breaker for me.
It is ironic that the two printers that looked bad in regard to poor gloss smoothness were the HPZ9 and the Canon 4100. These are the two that have dedicated gloss enhancer channels. Go figure. My old Z3200 has excellent gloss enhancer coverage so I assume the problem there lies with the dumbed down profiling software that HP never finished.
There have been numerous people on the lists that have the 4100 that hated what Canon did by removing the green. People that specialize in landscapes really miss having that green. I could probably live with it, maybe.
A noticeably better dither came from the P2000 and the 9570 and the best most cleanly neutral prints on Platine
came from these two printers and my Z3200 with 6000 patch target icc. I have seen bw prints before these recent ones on the 4100 as well that looked similar to the 4100 I just had made, but not from my file.
Anyway, we all have our needs and standards and picking a printer-inkset can be a multi-leveled decision. Maybe there is a place on the web where pros are comparing and raving about the great Canon monochrome stuff they are doing, I just haven’t seen it at all since they came out. I wish we had better comparative reviews by third parties but they don’t seem to exist anymore. If Canon has significantly improved their bw capability from the original Lucia inks I haven’t found where they or anyone else has written about it. Maybe it’s there and I just haven’t discovered it.
Actually most of my clients don’t sell their work, either photographs or painting reproductions on fine papers, for pocket change, so we’re talking about different needs for different galleries. Someone who is not well known at all sold a 30x40 for $3,500.00 last week and other galleries selling long established photographers for more than that regularly. A lot more clients are asking about longevity figures for color work
these days. In the past, not as much.
I ordered a sample bw print from Canon Sales from this printer and it was on rc and it was not good. I realize you can’t totally rely on that.
Maybe I should have someone else make this print on Platine on a 4100, if I could find someone, because I’m convinced they are the most durable and trouble free machines right now. But if the gloss situation is not working out on Platine, it doesn’t matter. I have too many editions out there on it that have to be reprinted all the time. On my old 8300 I had to spray the bw gloss with uv sprays, especially if it’s going in a portfolio where people are holding them in their hands.
Another thing I do really like about the Canon is you can set up a Q for knocking out 50 big prints and you can leave the studio and let it go because you are not going to see any clogging or head scraping issues. It’s a great printer for cranking out canvas and many many people use it for that.
John
@ John aka deanwork. My experience with this printer (canon 4100) is about as 180 degrees diametrically opposed to yours as possible. First I get amazing black and white prints with very deep blacks and as close to neutral tones as any printer i have seen or used. I have no idea why you cannot. Secondly by now I have produced well into the hundreds perhaps thousands of prints from the 4100 and have never not once heard any complaints about about faded or killed prints even from clients who produce canvas prints. Certainly none of mine have shown this issue so its really not clear to me where you are coming from on this. Lastly the elimination of the green channel thus far has not been an issue for me either and from what I can tell the reduced gamut in this area only presents itself with very acid greens like you would find the Pacific NW rainforest for instance. Admittedly I was a bit concerned about this going in since my personal work is with landscapes but thus far its really not been an issue.
The gloss optimizer is somewhat of a mixed bag and when used properly really does make an image pop a bit more and adds some depth. However it can be delicate on some papers like the Canson Infinity Platine Rag. Why I don't know but in most cases if a scuff or mar appears it usually buffs out easily with a very fine micro cloth of the same quality you would use on lenses. I do agree with you that none of these companies have completely aced a perfect printer but for me the 4100 certainly comes closer than any other ones I have tried or read about.
In conclusion at the risk of beating a dead horse I am truly astonished at some of the results you've described with this printer, it has certainly not been that way for me. I will add however I build all of my own custom printer profiles with the X-rite iOne Pro but even with the few times I've used the canned profilesi8 from manufacturers those prints are also very good with no issues. Thanks for the response and good luck.