Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: iCanvas on March 10, 2016, 09:35:36 am
-
Hi Mark,
Thanks for your review. Can you include the quality difference between "Standard" printing and "High" quality printing? Other reviews have stated that there is a visual difference. I have read reviews about the Epson P800 that the quality between "1440" and "2880" printing is almost indistinguishable. Is that the case with this Canon? Is it using more ink for the "High" quality? If that is the case, then it would seem like the Epson P800 could get the best quality at 1440 using less ink. It also seems that the PRO-1000 is using the same printhead that is in the PRO-2000 and PRO-4000. Thanks again,
Gar
-
Hi Gar,
When I test a printer I like to test it at its highest quality to see fully what it is capable of doing. As well, I never print at anything less than highest quality. Whether or not it uses a little bit more ink I don't care. I'm aiming for reliable high quality every time. I have no way of knowing whether in fact it uses more ink because as I mentioned in the article the software for measuring ink consumption is not yet released, and certainly in the case of Epson P800 users aren't being given any such information. That said, with the Epson printers in general, I've been informed that there is no material difference in ink usage between 1440 and 2880. Don't come to any conclusions yet about comparative ink consumption between these printers because there simply isn't enough evidence to do so. I recommend not depending on reviews for judgments about whether print quality differs between these settings. Some of this is objective, but some of it is in the eye of the beholder. It is best to make one's own test prints at the various settings and see what one finds acceptable.
-
Mark,
Thanks very much for the Canon Pro-1000 review as well as the earlier one for the Epson P800. Both are very informative and helpful.
Ralph
-
You are welcome Ralph. Glad you found them useful.
-
Mark,
As always, a thorough review and very well written. Thank you for the large effort that goes into something like this.
Brad
-
You are welcome Brad, much appreciated.
-
Does anyone have an idea as to why printer manufacturers limit the maximum length of print? Is it fear of overheating? Paper skew? Or...?
Brad
-
It's a very good question, and all the more so that alternative printing software - LSI's PrinTao for example, which we reviewed on this site recently, provides for extremely long length printing on supported printers that would otherwise be much more limited in this respect; unfortunately, however, PrinTao does not support the Pro-1000 printer yet.
-
Mark,
Great and informative job as always!
Now I'm rooting for you to review the P10,000!
:)
Dave
-
Thanks Mark, nice throrough review. I'm assuming you made all the measurements with the CO switched to "all over" since you recommended against the ecenomy setting?
Also, if the pro-2000 and pro-4000 use the same inks and the same print-head and can print with out (real) limits on the image length, it would surely be trivial for Canon to allow that driver to be used with the 1000. In any case, it's hard to see it as other than a commercial decision, but even then it seems a very strange one.
-
Mark,
Great and informative job as always!
Now I'm rooting for you to review the P10,000!
:)
Dave
Thanks Dave - you thinking of buying one of those? No doubt it would review nicely, but probably also one of these machines best adapted to people running high volume. As a practical matter I would need to do the work up at Epson's HQ here, as no way that beast would fit into my place. Something to think about once the next piece in the pipeline is done with.
-
Thanks Mark, nice throrough review. I'm assuming you made all the measurements with the CO switched to "all over" since you recommended against the ecenomy setting?
Also, if the pro-2000 and pro-4000 use the same inks and the same print-head and can print with out (real) limits on the image length, it would surely be trivial for Canon to allow that driver to be used with the 1000. In any case, it's hard to see it as other than a commercial decision, but even then it seems a very strange one.
You are welcome Graham. I have yet to hear the rationale for the length limitation, though I know Canon is listening to all the feedback, so let us see what happens in the fullness of time.
-
Oh - forgot to mention - yes, of course - CO set to cover the whole page. And that uses *a lot* of CO! But it makes sense - why leave gaps that can show up as gloss differential?
-
Mark, Thanks for this thorough review. A you have inferred the P800 and the Pro1000 are probably the biggest printers an enthusiast can comfortably have for home use. But in both reviews you have omitted what you think about space requirements to when loading 17" paper. Also a price comparison with an evaluation of the included cartridges would be helpful. From the videos, it would seem like both units need to sit on a free standing desk or mobile cart.
-
Hi Kenneth,
Thanks, glad you enjoyed the review. Actually, an Epson 4900 is bigger than both these other printers and also qualifies for home use - depends on the home, but my space for all this stuff is actually quite limited and I manage it. The P800 or the Pro-1000 need less than 10 inches of space behind them for attaching the roll holder or opening the back paper feed, respectively. I believe the manufacturers' websites may provide this information. As usual with printers, one needs front space to open the receiving trays - again their websites probably provide those specs. You can sit the printers on any table or counter that provides a stable support for them. As I've mentioned repeatedly in both the P800 and Pro-1000 reviews, it is premature to discuss costs of ink. Several key factors enter into that determination and we simply don't have adequate data for reliable comparison, let alone stand alone cost per print estimates from either one of those printers.
-
Mark
Thanks for the space requirement data. With regard to the cost of inks, I was referring to the fact that some printers are accompanied with starter cartridges that are only partially full and are mostly consumed on initialization to remove air or liquid from the tubing. By the time you get started printing you are looking at several hundred dollars getting new ink carts. Obviously, if you have to ask the cost of running these printers, you can't afford it ;) Still, if the output is nearly identical, the decision may come down to cost and ease of operation.
-
Mark
Thanks for the space requirement data. With regard to the cost of inks, I was referring to the fact that some printers are accompanied with starter cartridges that are only partially full and are mostly consumed on initialization to remove air or liquid from the tubing. By the time you get started printing you are looking at several hundred dollars getting new ink carts. Obviously, if you have to ask the cost of running these printers, you can't afford it ;) Still, if the output is nearly identical, the decision may come down to cost and ease of operation.
The initializing of the printer consumes ink to fill the lines and the rest of the ink transport system from cartridge to printhead. This is obviously essential for any printer. All of that ink gets used for making prints in a flow sense, (but remains as "overhead in the lines" in a stock sense). There is some drainage to the maintenance tank, but from what I am told, not much. Both the Epson P800 and the Canon Pro-1000 have 80ml cartridge capacity, but the initial fill for the Epson is 64ml and that for the Canon the full 80ml. But the Epson printer costs several hundred dollars less than the Canon. US 1300 (Canon) vs currently US 995 (Epson) at B&H. Furthermore, for those people to whom the cost of printing may well matter, it would be much more important to know how much ink, on average, each of these printers uses to print a sq. ft. of your favorite paper. That difference could be minimal or quite important, but we just can't say yet. So much to say, for those who need to know these costs, one needs to see the whole picture projected with reliable assumptions over the service life of the printers to know which is likely to be the more economical choice.
-
Well that's a significant difference in up front cost. (Close to 25%). The only advantage the Canon has is the Epson "reputation" for clogged nozzles - and with this new system that problem may have been overcome. I realize that Canon will probably take advantage of early adopters, but in a two horse race price will certainly be a major factor.
-
...Furthermore, for those people to whom the cost of printing may well matter, it would be much more important to know how much ink, on average, each of these printers uses to print a sq. ft. of your favorite paper. That difference could be minimal or quite important, but we just can't say yet. So much to say, for those who need to know these costs, one needs to see the whole picture projected with reliable assumptions over the service life of the printers to know which is likely to be the more economical choice.
The estimates provided by the printer companies and by third party reviews like those at Red River Paper are based on continuous throughput studies (i.e., print a couple hundred prints in a row, and measure how much ink has been used by simple weighing procedures). These studies provide "best case" results and do not capture the wasted ink volumes that will never hit the paper in lower frequency usage conditions and which greatly affect the amortized cost per print in more typical home or small studio printing sessions. The continuous throughput types of studies all tend to yield quite similar results, with projections of about 1.5- 2 ml per sq. ft. depending on image content. Hence, I don't think the specific printer model, screening patterns, print head, and ink formulation technologies are all that serious of variables in how much ink hits the paper when making a high quality inkjet print. The real wildcard variables in total cost of ownership and cost per print are actually both frequency and volume (i.e quantify of prints) of use. These two variables are highly dependent on the enduser's personal print making routines. If you print almost daily even if only one or two small prints, you will come reasonably close to those continuous throughput estimates of ink consumption. If you print only weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly, and only in low quantities of prints per session, then the ink consumption starts to skyrocket alarmingly due to increased printer maintenance cycles, often not initiated by the user but automatically in some way by the printer.
My Canon Pro-1, for example, uses simple clock timer rules to start a cleaning sequence behind the scenes prior to feeding the first print of the day if the time since last use is over 2.5 days. It will use several ml of ink to get itself ready to print, and the user will experience a few minutes of whirring sounds before the first print actually begins to feed, the long wait to feed the first print a sure indication that maintenance is being done. A single print per day on the Pro-1 will ward off this preemptive printer cleaning cycle. I've had mixed results on whether a simple nozzle check will suffice in lieu of an actual print. More study is necessary. Nevertheless, with almost daily use you will come very close to the 1.5-2ml/sq. ft ink consumption value, but an 8x10 inch borderless print every 3 days will now consume about 8 or more ml total (approximately 1.2 ml for the ink hitting the paper, and about 7ml going into the waste tank). Managing this excessive consumption therefore requires a combination of both frequency and print quantity strategies implemented by the end user. For example, if you can't print daily but you can make several or more prints in one printing session once a week, you will be amortizing the wasted ink over those several prints, not just the first print, and that will help to get the costs per print down significantly. For the Canon Pro-1 at least, those clock timer rules lead to more aggressive cleanings preemptively undertaken by the printer, culminating in the mother of all cleaning cycles at 45 days of non use (that fact documented in the service manual).
It was this low frequency usage scenario that really bit me hard on my first set of cartridges in the Pro-1 and got me interested in running more cost amortization studies as Mark S has alluded to in this thread. These studies take much more time (real time with real usage scenarios) than most reviewers can accomplish since the printers in review are typically loaners. I buy my printers and can therefore perform those extended studies, but it's a labor of love with every print, cartridge, and other material costs being documented in a spreadsheet, so I haven't been able to published very much on the subject yet.
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
I think both mfgr's have sort of shot themselves in the foot here. Epson by not getting rid of the d@mn PK/MK switch, reducing the #ml of ink (64 from 80) and the stupid expensive roll holder that should be $40 (on a good day). Canon by not making the -1000 more of a 5100 replacement (read longer prints and/or roll adaptor) but pricing it close to 5100 or Ep4900 category. If the -1000 had a little more (real roll support), they'd have sold a lot to all the unhappy 4900 users but it might well have cannibalized sales of the new 24" 2000 model.
I can envision 2 product teams @ Canon, one for the iPF's and the other for the PRO's and them trying to convince management what the product lines should be. The iPF team didn't make a good case for the 5100NG (next generation) whereas the PRO team sold them on -1000. Once they did that, there wasn't going to be a 5100NG.
-
Well that's a significant difference in up front cost. (Close to 25%). The only advantage the Canon has is the Epson "reputation" for clogged nozzles - and with this new system that problem may have been overcome. I realize that Canon will probably take advantage of early adopters, but in a two horse race price will certainly be a major factor.
The main difference between Canon and Epson in respect of keeping the print head clean is how it's done. With Canon most of it happens under the hood as I explained in my review, whereas with Epson, you clean clogged nozzles as you see them appear on the nozzle check. To some extent the difference in "clogging performance", if I can put it that way, may be more apparent than real. Both printers will consume ink for this kind of maintenance. As these two models are very new it is not possible to say yet which will maintain the print head more economically or efficiently. Who knows how people in the market for a 17" printer will, on the whole, decide between these two models; but I'm not convinced price would necessarily be the major factor; for now, the Canon is costlier but gives you more start-up ink, while the Epson is cheaper and gives you less start-up ink. The "real cost" difference, right now, apples-to-apples may be trivial. I've highlighted some significant user-friendliness features the Canon has, but the Epson is much more flexible in respect of print size capability. Different factors will be more or less important to different users.
-
The estimates provided by the printer companies and by third party reviews like those at Red River Paper are based on continuous throughput studies (i.e., print a couple hundred prints in a row, and measure how much ink has been used by simple weighing procedures). These studies provide "best case" results and do not capture the wasted ink volumes that will never hit the paper in lower frequency usage conditions and which greatly affect the amortized cost per print in more typical home or small studio printing sessions. The continuous throughput types of studies all tend to yield quite similar results, with projections of about 1.5- 2 ml per sq. ft. depending on image content. Hence, I don't think the specific printer model, screening patterns, print head, and ink formulation technologies are all that serious of variables in how much ink hits the paper when making a high quality inkjet print. The real wildcard variables in total cost of ownership and cost per print are actually both frequency and volume (i.e quantify of prints) of use. These two variables are highly dependent on the enduser's personal print making routines. If you print almost daily even if only one or two small prints, you will come reasonably close to those continuous throughput estimates of ink consumption. If you print only weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly, and only in low quantities of prints per session, then the ink consumption starts to skyrocket alarmingly due to increased printer maintenance cycles, often not initiated by the user but automatically in some way by the printer.
My Canon Pro-1, for example, uses simple clock timer rules to start a cleaning sequence behind the scenes prior to feeding the first print of the day if the time since last use is over 2.5 days. It will use several ml of ink to get itself ready to print, and the user will experience a few minutes of whirring sounds before the first print actually begins to feed, the long wait to feed the first print a sure indication that maintenance is being done. A single print per day on the Pro-1 will ward off this preemptive printer cleaning cycle. I've had mixed results on whether a simple nozzle check will suffice in lieu of an actual print. More study is necessary. Nevertheless, with almost daily use you will come very close to the 1.5-2ml/sq. ft ink consumption value, but an 8x10 inch borderless print every 3 days will now consume about 8 or more ml total (approximately 1.2 ml for the ink hitting the paper, and about 7ml going into the waste tank). Managing this excessive consumption therefore requires a combination of both frequency and print quantity strategies implemented by the end user. For example, if you can't print daily but you can make several or more prints in one printing session once a week, you will be amortizing the wasted ink over those several prints, not just the first print, and that will help to get the costs per print down significantly. For the Canon Pro-1 at least, those clock timer rules lead to more aggressive cleanings preemptively undertaken by the printer, culminating in the mother of all cleaning cycles at 45 days of non use (that fact documented in the service manual).
It was this low frequency usage scenario that really bit me hard on my first set of cartridges in the Pro-1 and got me interested in running more cost amortization studies as Mark S has alluded to in this thread. These studies take much more time (real time with real usage scenarios) than most reviewers can accomplish since the printers in review are typically loaners. I buy my printers and can therefore perform those extended studies, but it's a labor of love with every print, cartridge, and other material costs being documented in a spreadsheet, so I haven't been able to published very much on the subject yet.
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Yes, your comment on usage patterns being a major determinant of overall ink consumption is correct.
I have maintained spreadsheets on throughput and ink usage - and published a fair bit about it on this website; but the usefulness of those spreadsheets depends heavily on the availability of good data from the printer. Epson will not provide it for the P800, and we are still waiting for Canon's cost utility to be published, and when it is, to see whether it will report not only ink used on paper, but also ink used for maintenance. So we are in a bit of "black hole" in respect of ink costs for both models at this time.
-
Thanks Mark!
-
Mark,
Between the P800 and Canon PRO-1000 which would give the best shadow detail and overall wow factor? Of course, this may be very subjective, but just wanted your opinion since you tested both printers.
Gar
-
Mark,
Between the P800 and Canon PRO-1000 which would give the best shadow detail and overall wow factor? Of course, this may be very subjective, but just wanted your opinion since you tested both printers.
Gar
Either one of them - it all depends on how well you prepare your files for print. Where I said right up front in the review that "The printer is as good as the printer", I meant it! :-)
-
I would like to bring to the attention of readers interested in this printer, that there are two technical amendments to the article, and thank-you Canon Canada for bringing them to my attention. They are as follows:
(1) Borderless printing: it is possible to print borderless on matte fine art papers by canceling margin regulation in the printer driver.
(2) I am allowed to inform the community that Canon engineers are looking into the possibility of extending the print length and if they can do so, it would be included in a future driver update.
Both these changes are now reflected in the text of the article.
Mark
-
Thanks Mark and good for Canon to recognize that users may want to print longer length prints.
-
Mark,
Really terrific work on a thorough review. Are you planning to do similar on the Epson P7000/9000? It would be great to see a side by side comparison of the best each of the majors has to offer in current printers.
-
Mark,
Really terrific work on a thorough review. Are you planning to do similar on the Epson P7000/9000? It would be great to see a side by side comparison of the best each of the majors has to offer in current printers.
Thanks very much. Glad you found it useful.
I have no room to house the large 24/44 inch beasts, so to review those printers I would need to work with them at suppliers' premises - not impossible, but not yet on the radar; however that could change.
-
I would like to bring to the attention of readers interested in this printer, that there are two technical amendments to the article, and thank-you Canon Canada for bringing them to my attention. They are as follows:
(1) Borderless printing: it is possible to print borderless on matte fine art papers by canceling margin regulation in the printer driver.
(2) I am allowed to inform the community that Canon engineers are looking into the possibility of extending the print length and if they can do so, it would be included in a future driver update.
Both these changes are now reflected in the text of the article.
Mark
Thanks for the update Mark.
As someone who has been racking their tiny minds about whether to buy the canon or the epson p800, this may just have swayed my decision.
Cheers, John
-
Thanks for the review. It was much appreciated and quite prescient for me. The printer sounds like it could be the technology that I am looking for.
I was looking at the iPF8400 when the Pro-4000 was announced. Now I have a choice and a few quandaries in making a final decision. I wanted to assume that the ink set being reformulated in the Pro-4000 had more to do with improvements rather than the loss of green. Is that true? Based upon the Pro-1000 does the lack of Green ink make a substantive difference in the prints (green, blues, "bronzing", etc)?
And, I have heard that the "coating" must be applied overall. Yet, you stated on the 1000 review that you could adjust it so it was used only on the "inked area". Is that true for the large printers as well? Also, was the coating used on the 1000 in a substantially greater amount (i.e.: is it being used faster thus necessitating more frequent purchases)? On the larger printer I can only assume it would simply mean getting a larger supply of that ink.
I am interested in printing primarily on Hahnemuhle Fine Art Baryta, as well as Epson Premium Semimatte Photo and Epson Exhibition Fiber. As well as canvas (Arista II Matte Canvas).
Thank you and I will appreciate any and all input that you give.
-
Thanks for the review. It was much appreciated and quite prescient for me. The printer sounds like it could be the technology that I am looking for.
I was looking at the iPF8400 when the Pro-4000 was announced. Now I have a choice and a few quandaries in making a final decision. I wanted to assume that the ink set being reformulated in the Pro-4000 had more to do with improvements rather than the loss of green. Is that true? Based upon the Pro-1000 does the lack of Green ink make a substantive difference in the prints (green, blues, "bronzing", etc)?
And, I have heard that the "coating" must be applied overall. Yet, you stated on the 1000 review that you could adjust it so it was used only on the "inked area". Is that true for the large printers as well? Also, was the coating used on the 1000 in a substantially greater amount (i.e.: is it being used faster thus necessitating more frequent purchases)? On the larger printer I can only assume it would simply mean getting a larger supply of that ink.
I am interested in printing primarily on Hahnemuhle Fine Art Baryta, as well as Epson Premium Semimatte Photo and Epson Exhibition Fiber. As well as canvas (Arista II Matte Canvas).
Thank you and I will appreciate any and all input that you give.
The new Canon larger scale models: I have had no exposure to them so I cannot answer any questions about them. That may change going forward, but no idea when.
Green Ink: The Epson 4900 has both green and orange inks which the Pro-1000 does not have. They permit overall wider gamut as I have shown. I have illustrated and discussed in the Pro-1000 review the very limited colour range in which this matters. In sum: precious little to be concerned about. I wouldn't base a printer choice on this.
The Canon Chroma Optimizer: There is a choice of using it overall (I would recommend) or only in more heavily inked areas. My limited experience using the Pro-1000 that Canon loaned me for the review suggests that it does run out faster than the other inks when used "overall" and therefore necessary to keep a decent supply on hand.
-
Thanks for your input!
-
Mark, your printer reviews are excellent well done.
I have an off topic question.
In the video with you and Kevin going over the printer would you happen to know what Kevin uses for hanging his photos in his studio. It's like a poster hanger system but do you know which one he uses?
Thanks
-
Mark, your printer reviews are excellent well done.
I have an off topic question.
In the video with you and Kevin going over the printer would you happen to know what Kevin uses for hanging his photos in his studio. It's like a poster hanger system but do you know which one he uses?
Thanks
Hi "kuau"; thanks, appreciated, and yes, Kevin's photo hanging system is very cool. He explained it to us when we were at his studio last December, but I didn't write it down so I have forgotten the details; perhaps best you send him a PM.
-
I'm pretty sure that in a previous forum post someone asked exactly the same question and Kevin indicated that he makes them himself but there are somewhat similar commercial versions.
-
I'm pretty sure that in a previous forum post someone asked exactly the same question and Kevin indicated that he makes them himself but there are somewhat similar commercial versions.
Yes, this was covered last year when Kevin first mentioned the hanger system in response to a question. I believe at the time he indicated that he might find a way to manufacture them. In the meantime here are links to two suppliers of similar systems (I forget who posted these links last year, and I'm too lazy to use the search feature to try to find it ;)):
http://posterhanger.com/
http://www.wearewellmade.com/shop/stiicks
Alan
-
another is
http://www.shelftalkers.com/carttest2.aspx?productline=posterhangers
-
Thank you for this excellent in-depth technical review. I am curious about the chroma optimizer coating issue. I want to use whatever printer I get for printing on image transfer film. I understand that the transfers work better without the coating. Is the coating used as part of gloss profiles? From your review it sounds like you can't actually turn it off fully on a case by case basis. But ... I did see a demo piece at a Canon booth where they had printed one half of a picture with and the other half without the coating. So how did that happen I wonder - engineering magic or under user control?
I anticipate making a custom profile for the transfer film. Can you explain how / whether the use of the optimizer coating is baked into a paper profile?
Many thanks.
-
Thank you for this excellent in-depth technical review. I am curious about the chroma optimizer coating issue. I want to use whatever printer I get for printing on image transfer film. I understand that the transfers work better without the coating. Is the coating used as part of gloss profiles? From your review it sounds like you can't actually turn it off fully on a case by case basis. But ... I did see a demo piece at a Canon booth where they had printed one half of a picture with and the other half without the coating. So how did that happen I wonder - engineering magic or under user control?
I anticipate making a custom profile for the transfer film. Can you explain how / whether the use of the optimizer coating is baked into a paper profile?
Many thanks.
All I know about this is that the optimizer is automatically applied either in part or in full (your choice) for papers using PK ink. It is disabled automatically for papers using MK ink. I do not know whether it operates with transfer film. There is nothing in the manual answering this point. I recommend you call Canon tech support and ask them.
-
Many thanks for your Canon Pro-1000 and Epson SC-P800 reviews Mark. I'm someone who has never printed and will not do it with a high frequency but wants to start doing it with a 17" printer. From your reviews I conclude that the Canon may be giving less operating issues (paper feeding, clogging) and be easier to operate. I'm I wrong? If this wasn't really problematic and printing 1-2 times a month was not generating clogging problems, Epson's front feeding for baryta paper seems better for me since accessing the rear part of my printer won't be easy. I will be printing from Lightroom and for the time being, using paper rolls is not a priority for me.
-
Many thanks for your Canon Pro-1000 and Epson SC-P800 reviews Mark. I'm someone who has never printed and will not do it with a high frequency but wants to start doing it with a 17" printer. From your reviews I conclude that the Canon may be giving less operating issues (paper feeding, clogging) and be easier to operate. I'm I wrong? If this wasn't really problematic and printing 1-2 times a month was not generating clogging problems, Epson's front feeding for baryta paper seems better for me since accessing the rear part of my printer won't be easy. I will be printing from Lightroom and for the time being, using paper rolls is not a priority for me.
I should emphasize that in neither review did I make any statements about the performance of these printers in respect of clogging, because these are new products with insufficient evidence upon which to come to any conclusions about this aspect of performance. The facts we now know are confined only to HOW these printers manage maintenance to mitigate clogging. With an Epson professional printer, if you run a nozzle check and you see missing bars you launch one or more cleaning cycles to clear the nozzles. With the Canon Pro-1000, there are three approaches for this maintenance: (1) mandatory self-cleaning - beyond user control, (2) redundant nozzles in the print head and (3) manual cleaning as for the Epson. There isn't more to be said about the implications either way yet. If you are only printing a couple of times a month, bear in mind that both are pigment printers and both may need or implement cleaning when you fire them up, depending on a number of conditions.
Apart from that, as you don't need a roll-holder the two options are viable for you. As I mentioned in my review, I found the Canon paper feed in this model to be the easiest and most reliable I have ever experienced. Both printers need some back space to handle the thicker Baryta papers using the manual feeds, but not very much. If back space is a real constraint then you would want to check carefully with dealers which model needs more under what printing conditions and whether you can manage it relative to your requirements.
-
I have been using Epson Pro printers for 17 years. My 3880 lasted 4 years before a clogged head problem, it wouldn't respond to cleaning solutions, my 3800 only lasted 2 years.
I therefore decided to purchase the Canon Pro-1000. So far I have been very impressed with its operation and print quality. Comparing prints (same image) between the 3800 and Pro-1000, produced via Lightroom, the differences are subtle.
All of my Epson printers left cog wheel marks on plain black (saturated) backgrounds (regardless of any platen gap, drying time, etc, settings) - to be fair the print had to be turned obliquely to the light to see the obvious rows of dotted lines. So far there is no evidence of such marks from the Pro 1000. I suspect the air feed only keeps the image flat and does not involve feeding the paper through the machine - I could be wrong on this.
The paper loading on the Pro-1000 couldn't be more user friendly and accurate - I would occasionally get slightly skewed prints from the Epsons. I also like the way it uses a motorised system to agitate the ink cartridges - instead of having to remove cartridges by hand to agitate.
I don't print panos but I am sure that someone will come up with a solution to overcome this limitation at some point. Of course only time will tell how long the latest print head technology in the Pro 1000 will last for but at least its replaceable if I want to keep the machine and not upgrade to the next generation printer.
-
Many thanks for your informative responses Mark and N. Walker! Considering the high print quality of both printers, usability makes the difference.
-
I should emphasize that in neither review did I make any statements about the performance of these printers in respect of clogging, because these are new products with insufficient evidence upon which to come to any conclusions about this aspect of performance. The facts we now know are confined only to HOW these printers manage maintenance to mitigate clogging. With an Epson professional printer, if you run a nozzle check and you see missing bars you launch one or more cleaning cycles to clear the nozzles. With the Canon Pro-1000, there are three approaches for this maintenance: (1) mandatory self-cleaning - beyond user control, (2) redundant nozzles in the print head and (3) manual cleaning as for the Epson. There isn't more to be said about the implications either way yet. If you are only printing a couple of times a month, bear in mind that both are pigment printers and both may need or implement cleaning when you fire them up, depending on a number of conditions.
Major difference between Canon and Epson is head technology - thermal in case of Canon, piezo in case of Epson. Thermal head nozzle is several dozens smaller and produces more pressure than piezo nozzle, where there's large membrane chamber, with lots of place where air bubbles may gather, which absorbs pressure produced by piezo membrane. Smaller size with limited potential for air bubbles to gather and ability to produce higher ink pressure makes thermal nozzle less prone to clogging.
Due to compact size of thermal nozzle the print head had has very high nozzle density (1200dpi). The Canon prints at 600dpi using only every second nozzle, so each nozzle is backed up by a spare nozzle - when clogged nozzle is detected, it is compensated by the back up nozzle in the next head pass. This completely eliminates the possibility of banding while printing.
Furthermore, when the printer is on, it's maintaining print head and agitating ink carts. I'm not sure about new iPF PRO series, but in former x300-400 there was even a silicone tray, from which the silicon was applied by wipers to the print head to keep moisture.
The combination of head design that is generally less prone to clogging, clogged nozzle compensation system, automatic print head and ink cart maintenance and the fact, that there are separate channels for MK and PK blacks results in noticeable savings of ink and time used for head maintenance, and virtually eliminates the clogging problem from our lives. All you need is to keep printer on, it will take care of itself.
-
Although the review picks out the ease of paper loading on the Canon vis a vis the Epson P800 I wonder whether the Canon is less prone to headstrikes than I find the Epson 3800 to be (although acknowledging this is usually a result of the characteristics of a particular paper or the fact that the edges have curled, not to mention incorrect paper settings). Would be interesting to know this although probably academic as the weight of the Pro-1000, rather than the footprint would rule it out for me. BTW, in the UK the Pro-1000 and the P800 are about the same price (£999 Canon v £939 Epson) when you factor in the cost of the extra ink.
-
All you need is to keep printer on, it will take care of itself.
Marcin, really "on", or just plugged in? I'm guessing as long as it's plugged in it will keep track of time and date and hence not over-do whatever cleaning rituals it has to do... but actual cleaning actions will only happen when the light is on. Can you confirm?
-
If left on in sleep mode, the Canon 8300/8400 wakes up daily to agitate the ink cartridges. I have seen them wake up and do a cleaning cycle
but this is much rarer. I like to print a small test print that utilizes all colors at least every 4 days. This seems to minimize cleaning cycles and keep things flowing for me.
IMO the user experience with clogging is much nicer with these canon printers than my experience with my old Epson 7900.
-
Although the review picks out the ease of paper loading on the Canon vis a vis the Epson P800 I wonder whether the Canon is less prone to headstrikes than I find the Epson 3800 to be (although acknowledging this is usually a result of the characteristics of a particular paper or the fact that the edges have curled, not to mention incorrect paper settings). Would be interesting to know this although probably academic as the weight of the Pro-1000, rather than the footprint would rule it out for me. BTW, in the UK the Pro-1000 and the P800 are about the same price (£999 Canon v £939 Epson) when you factor in the cost of the extra ink.
When I was printing with a PRO-1000 during trade show I had an old box of wetted or improperly stored Baryta with edges so extremely curled upwards, that I didn't even think the printer will manage to feed it from the tray. At first as I expected the print head was smearing the paper surface and wrinkled the edges, but I enabled strongest vacuum pressure mode, and then it printed the whole box of paper smoothly, without a single scratch mark, all from automatic feeder. I knew what my large format iPFs with vacuum were capable of, but nonetheless I was quite impressed.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19059944/YGHG1529.jpg)
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19059944/12243239_10208836303015101_7218351611580059783_n.jpg)
-
that top photo puts the machine's size into perspective. Tiny, it isnt ;)
-
that top photo puts the machine's size into perspective. Tiny, it isnt ;)
The printer is massive, robust, and looks really impressive - but it's not really that bad, still a tiny printer when you put it next to 24-44" LFP ;)
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19059944/PRO1000size.jpg)
-
The printer is massive, robust, and looks really impressive - but it's not really that bad, still a tiny printer when you put it next to 24-44" LFP ;)
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19059944/PRO1000size.jpg)
LFP = Large Format Presenter?
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
January 2016 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
LFP = Large Format Presenter?
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
January 2016 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
Large Format Presenter was even larger - above 70" high ;)
-
Is there a printer in that photo? :D
How did they find a dress that is the *perfect* color to completely blow out the R channel ?
Make sure to pick up the zip tie that fell on the floor ;)
Hat tip! Superior booth babe!
-
The only thing that would preclude me from buying this printer is the fact that the length of the print is limited arbitrarily to 22 inches. Now I am seeing an update on the printer review page that Canon is planning to increase it to 25.5 inches, which would be great if true. I do not see any other place about this supposed plan for a new firmware. No press release from Canon either. I am wondering how much faith to put on this. I do not want to buy the printer and find that this new firmware does not show up.
Any thoughts?
-
The only thing that would preclude me from buying this printer is the fact that the length of the print is limited arbitrarily to 22 inches. Now I am seeing an update on the printer review page that Canon is planning to increase it to 25.5 inches, which would be great if true. I do not see any other place about this supposed plan for a new firmware. No press release from Canon either. I am wondering how much faith to put on this. I do not want to buy the printer and find that this new firmware does not show up.
Any thoughts?
We published that update on the authority of Canon Inc.
-
Thanks...I didn't mean to question the veracity of the source of your report. Just a little surprised that Canon has found this info not important enough to send out in the form of an official press release, at least on their own website. Well, may be that is how Canon does things. I will probably just wait until they start offering in their new machines.
-
I'm not. They're not going to do a press release or any such until the firmware is available to the general user population.
Until that point, it's possible that some marketing guy @ Canon decides 'nope'. I've been burned by too many 'we'll upgrade it'. While I do believe this one will come to pass, the proof is in the download :D
-
My Epson R3000's PK ink line is dropping large puddles of ink on my prints. All other inks seem fine, so I have been using up my inventory by focusing on matte photo paper printing while I investigate a replacement printer.
I am interested in acquiring either the P800 or the Pro-1000 as a replacement. So far, choosing one over the other seems a matter of 'picking my poison'. However, there are a couple of questions I have not seen discussed and could possibly have an impact on my choice:
1. the P800 has 9 inks and no clear overcoat; the Pro-1000 has 11 inks plus a clear overcoat. Do people imagine the added inks of Canons printer would have any impact on overall cost of operation? (my thinking suggests 'no' if one assumes the same volume of ink ((all colors)) is laid down per print by both printers. But I have no way of knowing whether the same volumes are laid down.) However, using the chroma optimizer is an added cost if it is used.
2. How important/valuable is having a chroma optimizer capability? Would identical prints produced on a P800 and a Pro-1000 be obviously different/better due to the chroma optimizer laid down by the Canon printer?
I am an amateur photographer. I do not sell prints. The pleasure I derive from photography is moving up the learning curve as I further my knowledge, skill and experience. I would want to acquire the printer that offers the most opportunity to move up that curve.
Thanks in advance for any insight / guidance.
-
My Epson R3000's PK ink line is dropping large puddles of ink on my prints. All other inks seem fine, so I have been using up my inventory by focusing on matte photo paper printing while I investigate a replacement printer.
I am interested in acquiring either the P800 or the Pro-1000 as a replacement. So far, choosing one over the other seems a matter of 'picking my poison'. However, there are a couple of questions I have not seen discussed and could possibly have an impact on my choice:
1. the P800 has 9 inks and no clear overcoat; the Pro-1000 has 11 inks plus a clear overcoat. Do people imagine the added inks of Canons printer would have any impact on overall cost of operation? (my thinking suggests 'no' if one assumes the same volume of ink ((all colors)) is laid down per print by both printers. But I have no way of knowing whether the same volumes are laid down.) However, using the chroma optimizer is an added cost if it is used.
2. How important/valuable is having a chroma optimizer capability? Would identical prints produced on a P800 and a Pro-1000 be obviously different/better due to the chroma optimizer laid down by the Canon printer?
I am an amateur photographer. I do not sell prints. The pleasure I derive from photography is moving up the learning curve as I further my knowledge, skill and experience. I would want to acquire the printer that offers the most opportunity to move up that curve.
Thanks in advance for any insight / guidance.
It's not picking poison. With a bit of perspective you would appreciate what marvelous printing technology we have at our fingertips these days.
There's no point "imagining" anything about ink costs. Either we have the data to establish what it costs, or we don't. In the case of Canon a utility for the printer provides it; Epson does not. Therefore they cannot be compared. I wouldn't think of the chroma optimizer as an "extra cost". It is simply part of the inkset and costed-in along with the other inks.
You may wish to re-read what I said in my review of the Pro-1000 about perceived print quality from the 4900, P800, and Pro-1000 printers.
Learning to print isn't about the printer; regardless of the printer model it's 99% about the initial quality of your photographs and your ability to prepare the photos for print using your photo editing application.
-
Thanks...I didn't mean to question the veracity of the source of your report. Just a little surprised that Canon has found this info not important enough to send out in the form of an official press release, at least on their own website. Well, may be that is how Canon does things. I will probably just wait until they start offering in their new machines.
Quite to the contrary, this is an important matter to them.
No mechanical changes to the printers are required for this update - it is all firmware/driver related, and when they publish them they will be usable on all the Pro-1000s sold.
-
I'm not. They're not going to do a press release or any such until the firmware is available to the general user population.
Until that point, it's possible that some marketing guy @ Canon decides 'nope'.
That's not how decisions get made in such a company. It's "quite a bit" more structured, collective and procedural. I have very considerable confidence that this will be done - the only uncertainty I'm aware of is the timing. I'll leave it that; everyone of course is free to believe what they want to believe.
-
Mark, thanks for your response. I think my "pick your poison" comment was a poor choice since it suggested to you that I had to choose between two poor options. That was not my intention. Nor, is it my belief. I believe I am confronted with making a choice between two excellent machines whose printing capabilities are very high - though, per your review comments, not up to par with the 4900.
The 'poison' was having to choose based upon lower importance issues/capabilities such as roll feeder/panorama capability, nozzle clogging potential, imposed margin / print length restrictions (which appears Canon will be resolving), price-at-the-moment, etc.
My question about inks and the chroma optimizer was essentially my attempt at trying to break a tie. Re-reading your review leaves me believing Canon's 11 inks (at ~$60 each) provides the equivalent output to Epson's 9 inks (at ~$55 each) giving Epson the edge on ink cost.
I still don't know how to value the chroma optimizer. I don't recall if your review indicated that the chroma optimizer had been applied to all Canon prints compared / measured with the Epson prints. If they were not, then it is an open question. If they were, then it seems to afford very minor visible benefit while adding cost and complexity.
In any case, if only 1% of the quality of the final print is contributed by the printer, with 99% coming from the quality of the image capture and the image editing, then the decision really isn't very important. Thanks! I can stop worrying about it.
-
Mark, thanks for your response. I think my "pick your poison" comment was a poor choice since it suggested to you that I had to choose between two poor options. That was not my intention. Nor, is it my belief. I believe I am confronted with making a choice between two excellent machines whose printing capabilities are very high - though, per your review comments, not up to par with the 4900.
The 'poison' was having to choose based upon lower importance issues/capabilities such as roll feeder/panorama capability, nozzle clogging potential, imposed margin / print length restrictions (which appears Canon will be resolving), price-at-the-moment, etc.
My question about inks and the chroma optimizer was essentially my attempt at trying to break a tie. Re-reading your review leaves me believing Canon's 11 inks (at ~$60 each) provides the equivalent output to Epson's 9 inks (at ~$55 each) giving Epson the edge on ink cost.
I still don't know how to value the chroma optimizer. I don't recall if your review indicated that the chroma optimizer had been applied to all Canon prints compared / measured with the Epson prints. If they were not, then it is an open question. If they were, then it seems to afford very minor visible benefit while adding cost and complexity.
In any case, if only 1% of the quality of the final print is contributed by the printer, with 99% coming from the quality of the image capture and the image editing, then the decision really isn't very important. Thanks! I can stop worrying about it.
Canon uses similar amount of ink (including Chroma Optimizer) as Epson, which makes the cost per print comparable. It doesn't waste ink for PK<>MK switches, and uses less ink for head maintenance, so the overall running cost should be lower. The effects of Chroma Optimizer are subtle, but discernible - less bronzing and gloss differential, better scratch resistance. And the print head is user replaceable, so in case of failure you just change it instead of dumping the whole printer - like in case of your R3000.
-
Mark, thanks for your response. I think my "pick your poison" comment was a poor choice since it suggested to you that I had to choose between two poor options. That was not my intention. Nor, is it my belief. I believe I am confronted with making a choice between two excellent machines whose printing capabilities are very high - though, per your review comments, not up to par with the 4900.
The 'poison' was having to choose based upon lower importance issues/capabilities such as roll feeder/panorama capability, nozzle clogging potential, imposed margin / print length restrictions (which appears Canon will be resolving), price-at-the-moment, etc.
My question about inks and the chroma optimizer was essentially my attempt at trying to break a tie. Re-reading your review leaves me believing Canon's 11 inks (at ~$60 each) provides the equivalent output to Epson's 9 inks (at ~$55 each) giving Epson the edge on ink cost.
I still don't know how to value the chroma optimizer. I don't recall if your review indicated that the chroma optimizer had been applied to all Canon prints compared / measured with the Epson prints. If they were not, then it is an open question. If they were, then it seems to afford very minor visible benefit while adding cost and complexity.
In any case, if only 1% of the quality of the final print is contributed by the printer, with 99% coming from the quality of the image capture and the image editing, then the decision really isn't very important. Thanks! I can stop worrying about it.
OK, time to clarify and sharpen a few points here. The Epson 4900 has a wider gamut in limited parts of the spectrum. Otherwise and for a great many photos not needing that extra gamut, there is very difference of print quality to tell between these printers, save to say that both the newer Epson and Canon inksets can reproduce a slightly deeper maximum black than the Epson 4900. I do not recommend buying an Epson 4900 unless it will be in fairly continued use.
There is no way of knowing yet who has the edge on ink costs because the required information to make such comparisons is simply not available from an Epson P800 and I have heard of no intention on their part to make it available. For the Canon printer it is now available, but only for the ink laid down on paper, and not for all the ink used for internal maintenance, which may be considerable - however Canon will not provide tracking information for this aspect of ink usage, which would vary a lot from one user's printing habits to another's. So forget about this and don't try to make a purchase decision based on ink costs - even if we knew them, I am 99.9% certain it wouldn't sensibly sway a decision toward one brand or the other. It is one of those "nice to know" things; however, for service bureaux a more important consideration than for casual printers - but most of them use larger upscale printers where much of this information is provided.
In the same vein, forget about trying to value the chroma optimizer independently of the rest of the inkset. Consider it simply as part of the inkset whose major role, as Canon says, is to expand gamut and dynamic range of the prints. As I said in the review and several times since, there is no option to turn it off. It is always used. The option available is whether to let it spread across the whole print (recommended), or in Auto mode where it activates for the parts of the print with the denser ink laydown. It is costed along with the other inks in Canon's new print cost accounting utility which Pro-1000 owners can now install.
Good that you are now more relaxed about the decision you wish to make - and indeed, the factors you include in the "poison" do differentiate these machines; so you need to land on which set of features best responds to how you want to print.
-
Trying to choose between P800 and Prograf 1000 to replace my 3800. Having negotiated transit agreements with other family members for the larger bulk and weight of the Canon and taking as given a firmware update to permit up to 25.5" it should be a level playing field. The thing that inclines me towards the Canon is the fact that I tend to swap papers a lot depending on the effect I'm looking for and frankly I'm just not organised enough to batch matt and glossy papers. Also, I do seem to get a lot of head strikes with the 3800 and the vacuum feed on the Canon should be a plus here.
My reservation is the impression the Canon is more geared towards glossy and lustre papers and the fact that Epson have reformulated their matt black ink. My two favourite surfaces are "not very glossy" gloss, i.e. the glossy baryta papers that look like a non-glazed glossy darkroom fibre paper ( e.g. Harman) and slightly textured matt papers like Somerset Enhanced or Fotospeed Natural Soft textured. I wonder whether the Epson is a better bet for the textured matt. If there is hardly anything in it I'm leaning towards the Canon.
-
My reservation is the impression the Canon is more geared towards glossy and lustre papers and the fact that Epson have reformulated their matt black ink. My two favourite surfaces are "not very glossy" gloss, i.e. the glossy baryta papers that look like a non-glazed glossy darkroom fibre paper ( e.g. Harman) and slightly textured matt papers like Somerset Enhanced or Fotospeed Natural Soft textured. I wonder whether the Epson is a better bet for the textured matt. If there is hardly anything in it I'm leaning towards the Canon.
Canon reformulated the inkset for the Pro-1000 printer. The prints I made with it on matte papers were fine. As far as I can see, neither printer has any serious advantage over the other for making prints on matte papers. But regardless of the printer, matte papers cannot reproduce the dynamic range and depth of Black you can achieve from a Luster/Gloss paper.
-
Canon reformulated the inkset for the Pro-1000 printer. The prints I made with it on matte papers were fine. As far as I can see, neither printer has any serious advantage over the other for making prints on matte papers. But regardless of the printer, matte papers cannot reproduce the dynamic range and depth of Black you can achieve from a Luster/Gloss paper.
Of course not but they have a certain tactile quality, at least the ones with some texture, maybe not at their best behind glass but something that can be held and touched.
-
Sure, it's all a matter of personal taste. Some people prefer higher DMax to tactile effects, others the reverse. I just wanted to be sure you weren't expecting miracle DMax from either printer on matte papers.
-
Cornyj: Thanks for your comments. I don't think I have arrived at the point of actually recognizing bronzing or gloss differential. I read discussions describing the effects, but in looking at my prints, I have been unable to identify these flaws (I'm guessing they exist, I just don't have the sophistication to pick them up yet). The scratch resistance has clear value and I had not valued that benefit so I will give that further consideration.
My indecision to choose a printer is a surprise to me. My first photographic inkjet printer was a Canon i9900 that I purchased back in 2004. It was a flawless printer. All my camera gear is Canon. It is also flawless. I bought the Epson R3000 when it first came out in order to move to pigment inks. I had heard about the ink switching and blow outs and was wishing Canon had come out with a competitor so I could stay with them (I could have bought the 5100 but it seemed like more printer than I was ready for). So, I took a chance and was rewarded: the Epson worked flawlessly for almost five years. Then, coincidentally with the releases of the P800 and Pro-1000, it failed. I thought it was an omen - I could get back to Canon. Then, when I find out the second level attribute differences, I became frustrated. The sticking point relates to panoramas. I enjoy creating them. So, I can get back to Canon and get the benefits of vacuum feed and no ink swapping, or stick with Epson and do in-house panos.
Given Canon has indicated unofficially that they can and will modify software to eliminate the imposed border restriction on length, do you believe they have the capability to allow even longer length panoramic printing? (Without any foundation for adding a roll feed unit, it seems unlikely to me.)
In any case, it has helped my decision making by engaging in these chats with you and Mark. I think I know which way I am going. Thanks for listening and commenting.
Jim
-
Given Canon has indicated unofficially that they can and will modify software to eliminate the imposed border restriction on length, do you believe they have the capability to allow even longer length panoramic printing? (Without any foundation for adding a roll feed unit, it seems unlikely to me.)
Jim
Please read carefully enough: on the subject of the length limitation we published the update of May 22nd to my review of this printer indicating that the limitation is being extended to 25.5 inches (from 22). This will not give you the ability to print panos any longer than 25.5 inches.
-
I was reading another review of the Pro-1000 (Northlight Images) and that referred to inability to select Black Point Compensation which could be an issue printing from matt papers. I'm not clear whether this is only the case when printing from the Canon plug-in or it also applies to printing from Photoshop. This isn't specifically mentioned in the Lula review. Must admit I'm apprehensive about Canon software - I have a Canon all in one which has nearly been hurled out of the window several times.
-
For the Canon Pro-1000, if you have "Photoshop Manages Colors" active in the Photoshop Print dialog you can select Black Point Compensation with all the rendering intents except Absolute.
-
For the Canon Pro-1000, if you have "Photoshop Manages Colors" active in the Photoshop Print dialog you can select Black Point Compensation with all the rendering intents except Absolute.
Right thanks for that.
-
Of course not but they have a certain tactile quality, at least the ones with some texture, maybe not at their best behind glass but something that can be held and touched.
Ah, tactile quality - the paper salesman's friend... I've spoken to quite a lot of paper suppliers in the UK and they agree that you sell papers on qualities that matter not one jot to most people actually looking at the prints ;-)
-
I was reading another review of the Pro-1000 (Northlight Images) and that referred to inability to select Black Point Compensation which could be an issue printing from matt papers. I'm not clear whether this is only the case when printing from the Canon plug-in or it also applies to printing from Photoshop. This isn't specifically mentioned in the Lula review. Must admit I'm apprehensive about Canon software - I have a Canon all in one which has nearly been hurled out of the window several times.
It works from within PS - see the two example prints one with and one without BPC.
I've edited the text in the review to make this point even clearer than it was before.
This is the difference it made on one matte paper
(http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/content_images_2/pro-1000/matte-bpc-difference.jpg)
-
After the slight problems getting a PRO-2000 into my house, I had another chat with people at Canon UK.
There is, I'm afraid, no information about the page length issue available. No hints, no suggestions - nothing.
I'm taking this as an official 'No comment' policy.
I'm pretty sure though that Canon in Japan are being told that it is causing appreciable 'sales resistance'...
-
It works from within PS - see the two example prints one with and one without BPC.
I've edited the text in the review to make this point even clearer than it was before.
This is the difference it made on one matte paper
I don't think matte paper is a particularly suitable media from which to appreciate the difference, because much of the BPC benefit is seen most obviously in the deep shadow range below the capability of matte papers to properly represent. I suspect this is the reason why the difference between the two versions in your image here is - while noticeable - rather subtle.
-
After the slight problems getting a PRO-2000 into my house, I had another chat with people at Canon UK.
There is, I'm afraid, no information about the page length issue available. No hints, no suggestions - nothing.
I'm taking this as an official 'No comment' policy.
I'm pretty sure though that Canon in Japan are being told that it is causing appreciable 'sales resistance'...
If you are talking about the Pro-1000, I know first-hand that the senior technical staff in charge of this printer at Canon Inc (Japan) are thoroughly familiar with this issue, they know the importance of it, they are addressing it and we are reliably informed they will be adding several inches to the maximum sheet length. That is why we published the update notice of May 22nd in my review of the Pro-1000.
-
Ah, tactile quality - the paper salesman's friend... I've spoken to quite a lot of paper suppliers in the UK and they agree that you sell papers on qualities that matter not one jot to most people actually looking at the prints ;-)
Keith, I think you and I are at the same place on this matter - the image quality, in particular rendition of Blacks/shadow detail is usually more important than how the paper feels; but the tactile quality, while the paper salesman's friend, is indeed more than that. Many people do think that holding and feeling the paper is an important aspect of the overall print appreciation experience. I don't: when I'm focused on a photograph the feel of the paper is the last thing on my mind; but that's just me and neither here nor there. Each to his/her own. And it has to be said, some of these matte papers combined with the new inksets have enhanced the range of photographs that really do fit very well or even better in a matte environment. So the old advice that the paper should be matched to the subject matter does make sense up to a point.
-
If you are talking about the Pro-1000, I know first-hand that the senior technical staff in charge of this printer at Canon Inc (Japan) are thoroughly familiar with this issue, they know the importance of it, they are addressing it and we are reliably informed they will be adding several inches to the maximum sheet length. That is why we published the update notice of May 22nd in my review of the Pro-1000.
Yes, the PRO-1000. I've been asked by quite a few people about this and unfortunately this side of the pond, there is no comment or further info on the update you mention.
Given the performance of the paper handling of the PRO-1000 with A2 media there is no good reason not to take the max. page length up by at least another 6 in.
25.5 inch seems -to my mind- a pretty half hearted change (welcome to be sure, but still useless for rather too many potential users)
-
I don't think matte paper is a particularly suitable media from which to appreciate the difference, because much of the BPC benefit is seen most obviously in the deep shadow range below the capability of matte papers to properly represent. I suspect this is the reason why the difference between the two versions in your image here is - while noticeable - rather subtle.
I'm inclined to disagree here - I see the effects of a lack of BPC somewhat more clearly, on Canon printers that I've tested, with matte papers and the profiles (i1Profiler) that I've built.
I picked the example shown specifically to show that it was a relatively subtle change for many images, but one that once you noticed it, jumped out at you.
I note too that Canon specifically say that you don't need BPC with their profiles.
My biggest complaint would be that they are still saying you need to install the Adobe CMM, when it works on no current systems Mac or PC. (I can't find any updated Adobe CMM info after 2009 - does anyone else know if this is the current state of things?)
This is an ongoing problem with Canon print plugins for quite some time - I like the PS printing plugin for my iPF8300, but BPC support vanished a while ago.
If I'm printing with it now and want BPC, I convert to my printer profile before calling the print plugin, and then print with no colour management
-
Yes, the PRO-1000. I've been asked by quite a few people about this and unfortunately this side of the pond, there is no comment or further info on the update you mention.
Given the performance of the paper handling of the PRO-1000 with A2 media there is no good reason not to take the max. page length up by at least another 6 in.
25.5 inch seems -to my mind- a pretty half hearted change (welcome to be sure, but still useless for rather too many potential users)
Neither your side of the pond or mine are determinative in this matter - it is Canon Inc. in Japan. That's where the technical decisions are made. Of course they cull advice and insight from all their branch operations.
Frankly, between the four walls of the internet, I would have preferred to see the total elimination of a length limitation from the printer - let it print for whatever length the printing application allows. Their response of 25.5 inches at least allows to fill the page with a FF aspect ratio without cropping and without wasting paper - that was the thinking, and it does achieve that objective, so it will address that range of complaints about it. I don't know what technical issues they would encounter eliminating the length limitation, but I do know they understand what some other printers offer and what the market is telling them.
-
I'm inclined to disagree here - I see the effects of a lack of BPC somewhat more clearly, on Canon printers that I've tested, with matte papers and the profiles (i1Profiler) that I've built.
I picked the example shown specifically to show that it was a relatively subtle change for many images, but one that once you noticed it, jumped out at you.
I note too that Canon specifically say that you don't need BPC with their profiles.
My biggest complaint would be that they are still saying you need to install the Adobe CMM, when it works on no current systems Mac or PC. (I can't find any updated Adobe CMM info after 2009 - does anyone else know if this is the current state of things?)
This is an ongoing problem with Canon print plugins for quite some time - I like the PS printing plugin for my iPF8300, but BPC support vanished a while ago.
If I'm printing with it now and want BPC, I convert to my printer profile before calling the print plugin, and then print with no colour management
I can't further test for this as I no longer have the printer, but for those who find they need BPC, the easiest workaround is to print from PS or LR.
-
"Technical issues"?
ROFL....
-
"Technical issues"?
ROFL....
I don't presume to know more about technical design issues than the people who design and manufacture this equipment explain to me, so I won't even speculate. Rather than rolling on the floor laughing I just assume they have their reasons, they make their decisions on the specs knowing full well what the issue is, and so be it. It either influences potential customers' decisions to buy the printer or it doesn't as the case may be. Perhaps discussion of this single item has maxed-out its value-added.
-
"Technical issues"?
ROFL....
Yes ;-)
In an interesting aside, from Epson that to my mind illustrates the issue, is that when I first got the SC-P800 to review (a pre production model) I queried the different maximum page lengths that appeared in different parts of the documentation.
It seems that the shorter length was partly due to amount of paper that could freely hang from the front of the printer before its weight affected printing. Of course this was nothing to do with how you'd actually make large prints (such as the 10 foot one I printed) but is indicative of how 'real' technical limitations affect what final specs are.
Now the conspiracist in me might also see the dead hand of marketing in such things, but the page length in the PRO-1000 could just be something as simple as the longest piece of paper that wouldn't fall off the output tray when fully extended. Understandable but IMHO wrong ;-)
Oh, how I really would love to talk to the people who design and manufacture such products, but they are many levels of corporate organisation beyond the very helpful people in Canon UK I deal with...
-
Today there is a DPR post (Printer forum) that describes an Australia Canon Pro-1000 firmware update v2.1
U.S. Canon site cites 7/20/16 v1.2 update as being current.
Any thoughts re: implications of v.2.1?
-
Today there is a DPR post (Printer forum) that describes an Australia Canon Pro-1000 firmware update v2.1
U.S. Canon site cites 7/20/16 v1.2 update as being current.
Any thoughts re: implications of v.2.1?
The latest firmware version for the PRO-1000 is v2.0 currently on the Canon USA site as of Sept 1.
Canon Australia lists the same firmware version v2.0 updated on Sep 2 but they've added 2 extra digits to get to v2.010. I'm informed that there are not known to be no meaningful differences between the two versions, if any.
-
Mark:
Thank you for this review and for persisting in answering questions over a long period. I'm clicking in very late and don't know if your still check this thread out, but I have a question more about software operation. I'm aware that Kevin likes to use 3rd party printing software to run his Epson, and you've made mention of another 3rd party software program that might provide similar options for the Canon printers. I've been using Capture One for post and printing from within the program - but honestly I can't tell which software is driving the printer unless I were to produce a print ready image and then print that directly using 3rd party software. I'm assuming there's a benefit to this 3rd party biz.. but there's really no way of knowing. I wonder whether here in the forum or in a separate LULA article you and Kevin might address the benefits. I'm wondering whether Epson "needs" this more which is why the 3rd party software is focused there, or whether there were simply more Epson printers out in the market. I have no clue. I wonder whether you can comment here?
My experience with Canon lies in using their lower end inkjet (rather than this pigment ink) and I have to say the thing PRO-100 is an absolute tank, works every time even after sitting long months idle. The feed is tremendous and the ink doesn't clog. So I'm very sold on Canon... after not expecting to be (my 1990's experience with HP "Deskjets" was horrible!!!). But I see these printers are "better", their colors last longer... and they're a lot more expensive (I bought mine as an open box from B&H "used" for $150). So I puzzle whether there's greater, more accurate or controlled output, and whether there's really a point... but the case for durable color "fast" inks is fairly convincing. Kevin's made custom profiles using what I suppose is a print equivalent of the screen Spyder color adjustment we all use for our monitors. I'm also curious how many folks are doing this sort of fine tuning... makes sense to do it... but I find myself going down so many rabbit holes I start to wonder... whether the juice is worth the squeeze.
In the end, I suppose a $1,000 price point is justifiable for even for an amateur (like me)... but it's perhaps marginal ... and certainly much beyond that begs a photographer to consider whether it makes more sense in specific cases for added size to use a pro service bureau. Any thoughts on that aspect you can share? Surely for some there's no limit... but the "Back to the Print" articles began with the premise that folks weren't printing at all and we really need to provide incentives, and ease their way. Then again, we also have ways to make the simple complicated - given a chance. Pigment vs. Dye ink might not be the decision point, but do you have any other keys you'd suggest folks focus on in choosing a first printer, a "next" printer... or on some other basis that might not be readily apparent, but you find folks tend to gravitate towards?
Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
-
Hi Roscoe,
The short answer to your question on third party printer drivers is that you don't need a Raster Image Processor (RIP) to make excellent prints using Photoshop or Lightroom and the native printer driver supplied with the printer. They have unique convenience , layout and file management features and some people claim superior results from them, but strictly speaking, especially as you seem to be just emerging from the elementary end of the printing enterprise, if I were you I would delay consideration of those processors for the time being. Not strictly necessary - and many fine professional photographers make and sell expensive prints without using them.
Dye-based printers will tend to clog less than pigment-based printers - this is inherent in the nature of the inks. These days some of the dye inks are showing longevity estimates that are not too far off those for the pogments - it depends on the inkset; you need to check websites such as Wilhelm-Research for that information, or the printer manufacturers' reported test results.
Practically speaking, in your shoes I would start out using the printer/paper profiles supplied by the manufacturers. Only if you get persistently disappointed by the results and the cause of the disappointment is not pilot error would I recommend custom profiles. Cheap printer/paper profiling kit is not likely to give you better results than the manufacturers' profiles. You have more assurance of consistently higher quality buying a higher end profiling kit, but that gets quite expensive and unless you intend to make a lot of use of it, most likely not worthwhile. Once you decide upon the two or three papers you will use most often, if you think you need custom profiles use a good profiling service such as Andrew Rodney (Digitaldog), or OnSight (Scott Martin if he is still offering the service to one-off customers) to make them for you. Much cheaper.
As for printers, if you want to move up from the Canon dye printer you are now using to something more professional, I would recommend an Epson P600, Epson P800 or a Canon Pro-1000. They all make excellent prints but they have different features, so you need to read the reviews and the views of other forum members who have used both and make up your mind which to buy.
I mentioned pilot error - the key to happy printing is to have your colour management properly set-up and make consistent use of soft-proofing in your image editing software with a properly calibrated and profiled display before pressing the print command. Too much to get into in a forum post but there is a lot of instructional material on this website indicating how to do this. The LuLa video tutorials "From Camera to Print" by Michael Reichmann and Jeff Schewe would do fine and they are fun to watch. I find Lightroom is the easiest path to fine printing these days; other people prefer other opinions. But you can test various image editing applications and settle on the one you can manage best.
-
In the end, I suppose a $1,000 price point is justifiable for even for an amateur (like me)... but it's perhaps marginal ... and certainly much beyond that begs a photographer to consider whether it makes more sense in specific cases for added size to use a pro service bureau. Any thoughts on that aspect you can share?
Speaking for myself:
If you only print a handful of images, you're better off with a service.
If you want to make a lot of prints, owning a larger printer makes a lot of sense. You get better quality, more control, more convenience.
If you are OK with smaller prints (11" x 14") then you can save a few simoleons with a smaller printer.
-
Mark: Thanks for clarifying!! I'm pretty happy with where I am at the moment. Canon Pro-100 does a nice job and is getting me oriented toward printing production as opposed to strictly web display. The 11 X 17 and 13 X 19 is plenty big and gives an impact. I think it' helps with editing a collection of photos to see a group printed. Very nice to see a reasonably large print of your own on the wall. Nice of you to strip it down for a guy like me. Thanks, and thanks for your continuing to monitor this thread. Amazing... actually, and very helpful. I think the folks who worry about the costs are either into production, or pinching it too hard. The thrill of what comes out of the printer... I can't get over it. And yes, the videos here are great. Lula videos taught me Capture One and got me into "The Print" and Jeff Schewe's book. As a friend said, "If you aren't printing, you're not (yet) into photography."
-
You are welcome. And I agree - printing - works on paper - is at least half the thrill of photography.
-
Mark: Just wanted to pipe in that I've continued to ponder this over the past month. I think I'm coming to the conclusion that my original intention of upgrading from a dye-based Canon Pixma Pro 100 to Canon's new 17-inch Pro-1000 will not happen. Instead, I'm increasingly inclined to give the Epson P800 a shot. The P600 is essentially the same size I already have, so there's not enough "oomph" to make that appealing for the $ spent. On the other hand, moving from a 13-inch to a 17-inch adds a bit. Where the Epson appeals is in the footprint, weight, and roll feed option. Basically, I can have a smaller, lighter printer that can produce bigger prints and panoramas. That's appealing. Add the fact that the head clogs seem less problem-some than in the past together with some of the early month problems that folks report here with Canon... and I think the two are likely more even on service and reliability than perhaps I'd judged as favoring Canon in the past. I've checked with others who suggest there is a difference between these two in how they formulate their inks and this has an impact on glossies. Some suggest this favors Canon; others that Canon has caught up to Epson. For the most part, I'm considering the two reasonably close in quality and ahead of my current solution so that it's important to pay attention to the other details. In this, I hear the reds and blacks in Epson are well liked. I'd like to make a comparison myself, but I'm not sure where that option's available outside of Chicago or New York.
I've also tried to make some sense of why Epson's seemed to have 3rd party software for printing (but Canon did not until more recently), and wondered whether that was due to problems/needs with the Epson, larger installed base, or what have you, but contacted Imageprint and heard that in some respect the availability depends on whether the manufacturer publishes the machine's protocols so that there's an openness to 3rd party drivers. Way into the weeds for me on much of this, but Kevin's made a case that some of the software offers a stability in workflow and ease of use that will outlast the particular printer, and I find that compelling. Imageprint also will drive the new Canon, but seems the forte' is Epsons. With my current Canon, I've gotten used to having it in the closet on wireless. An Epson would fit, but it may be better from a humidity perspective to have it down in the basement - especially if you add the roll feature accessories. I agree with those who post that it's not just the technical aspects of photography that are important, but the enjoyment of the process counts, too. That's a principle that guided me to recently replace all my lenses in moving to almost exclusive shooting fully manual. It ain't quick, but it's control and has a feel to the process I like... making the whole more fun. On the other hand, anything that can take the headaches out of printing... where I'm not looking to get into the weeds, but let software or someone else's genius let me see my work with as little fuss as possible. Plenty of folks will no doubt respond there's nothing added in Imageprint that LR or PS can't do... or perhaps even my favorite, Capture One. Paper profiling for the specific printer is also something Imageprint does... and though we're supposed to be able to load the manufacturer's profiles into software like Capture One, I've not figured that out yet, nor have I been certain that real whether it's Capture One or Canon that's controlling my output. This fuzziness doesn't become me. So I'm going to give Imageprint a try - even if I'd agree with others on the pricing as a bit steep. Truth be told, it's probably more reasonable than it seems if you were to consider 1) it's a small company, 2) they're doing service bureau-type work in some respects in profiling, and 3) the results and/or ease of generating them... are SUPPOSED to be worth the cost. Mileage may vary? Sure. I'll have to check mine, too!
But first things first. Don't know when I'm gonna pull this trigger, but there are discounts out there. Yes, the last ones just expired only to be replaced with new ones. Funny, huh? Any way, Thank you for your posts on printing, your articles and your interest in helping others. You're a real credit to the field, the profession, and even to those of us back-of-the-curve amateurs. Keep it up!! ;)
-
Thanks very much Roscoe, appreciated. I've read through your thought process just above and understand where you are coming from and the considerations that are important to you. My suggestions in Reply #90 remain what I would suggest under the circumstances. Regarding ease of use, either of those two printers aren't challenging once you learn how to use them. The Canon is likely a tad easier to manage because it keeps itself clean using internally controlled algorithms, but with the Epson, when it clogs you need to intervene with a cleaning cycle or more depending on the circumstances. But the Canon lacks roll-holding capability. Comparing features is often about trade-offs and you need to decide which is more important to you; that would guide your decision.
-
Mark:
Thanks again and again!
I stumbled on this discussion and wonder whether you're familiar with Jon Cone and Piezography (see: http://jeffreyhughes.net/wordpress/2014/12/21/adventures-in-piezography/ as well as http://piezography.com/ ). Relying on a piece of RIP software ( http://quadtonerip.com/ which btw seems to be ding dong dead ). And I'm wondering whether this is "for real", current, or as so often seems, a work-a-round for a time that's been bypassed. Maybe it's current, too. Anything's possible. Seems very much in the roll-your-own category from the outside, but there's always a compelling story and solution for someone. Some of these are overlooked; some overlooked because the entry hassle is just too steep. Just curious whether you or anyone here is familiar with this and these folks and their process?
-
Yes Jon Cone's piezography inks are highly respected and probably played an important role improving B&W inkjet printing. Whether that remains the case today is hard to say - I certainly don't know and have no incentive to find out. When today's professional printers (such as the Epson P800 and the Canon Pro-1000) can reproduce blacks down to L*2 and deliver excellent grayscale rendition from 2 upward using the manufacturers' inks, as far as I'm concerned there isn't much more to be said; but that isn't informed by direct comparison of OEM inks versus Cone inks on these printers so I could be wrong.
-
"Whether that remains the case today is hard to say - I certainly don't know and have no incentive to find out." ;)
"...when today's professional printers (such as the Epson P800 and the Canon Pro-1000) can reproduce blacks down to L*2 and deliver excellent grayscale rendition from 2 upward using the manufacturers' inks, as far as I'm concerned there isn't much more to be said"
Only thing that could/should be said for those of us relative neophytes is: See this article: https://luminous-landscape.com/new-epson-surecolor-p800-printer-review/
Wished I'd found that earlier. Thanks again for making my life simpler!
-
First thanks for the effort and nice results of a review like this. Much appreciated.
Now owning the model, I have noticed a couple of mentioned features I haven't found on my new printer.
One from the printer plugin:
"It has a function to adjust sharpness according to paper characteristics; I have not been able to test this to see what it really does, but sounds interesting." Cannot find this.
Another feature mentioned is:
"Profiling: While these professional printers are built to a high degree of uniformity from unit to unit, it can be that the OEM provided profiles may not be optimal for your particular unit. To cater for this potential issue without the user needing to buy any external profiling software, the printer has an in-built automated profiling capability that works with a set of printed patches and internal sensors to tweak the provided profiles. Also very cool."
Haven't found this either. Trying out the calibration feature, but haven't found the profiling feature anywhere. Will rely on the i1Pro for this still.
A request for sharpening observations:
Any experience using the "contrast reproduction" feature from the plugin? Haven't tried it yet, not using the plugin normally, and being busy testing lot's of other settings.
Doing color managing test prints (testing profiles and making comparative examples for myself and others), I noticed a few times that using "Managed by printer" from Lightroom (not using plugin), that sharpness appeared higher in micro details, compared with my normal ICC / LR managed use (same LR capture and output sharpen used for both). Wondering if the driver might be applying the "contrast reproduction" feature somehow, or otherwise applying sharpening not done when driver doesn't do color management. Anyone noticing this as well?
Regards
Henrik
-
Please see my comments in bold for ease of distinction.
First thanks for the effort and nice results of a review like this. Much appreciated.
You are welcome.
One from the printer plugin:
"It has a function to adjust sharpness according to paper characteristics; I have not been able to test this to see what it really does, but sounds interesting." Cannot find this.
Same status - I have not found it either. I suspect it is built into the driver and the precise character of it gets adjusted under the hood as a function of the Media Type one chooses, but if any one else knows better, please speak-up.
Another feature mentioned is:
"Profiling: While these professional printers are built to a high degree of uniformity from unit to unit, it can be that the OEM provided profiles may not be optimal for your particular unit. To cater for this potential issue without the user needing to buy any external profiling software, the printer has an in-built automated profiling capability that works with a set of printed patches and internal sensors to tweak the provided profiles. Also very cool."
Haven't found this either. Trying out the calibration feature, but haven't found the profiling feature anywhere. Will rely on the i1Pro for this still.
It is actually the calibration tool accessible on the panel, used in conjunction with the Media Configuration Tool for papers other than Canon papers.
..............
Regards
Henrik
-
Hopefully Mark is still reviewing comments or questions. I have read the entire review and nothing there talks about paper registration. I posted the following request under another topic but have not gotten any replies. Can you please help here.
I currently have an Epson 3880. I am happy with the print quality of the 3880 but I have two unique problems. I print photographic art greeting cards, 4-up on B3+ paper.
1. The 3880 does not register each sheet perfectly. It is OK for individual prints but if I print 10 or 20 sheets at a time they will all vary by either a minor skew or miss-register by a millimeter or two. This makes it impossible to take a stack of prints to a large paper cutter and group cut them. Each B3+ must be cut by hand. I have the same problem with folding.
Can you tell me if the Canon vacuum feed registers multiple prints accurately?
2. I score every print for folding. The ink on the 3880 sometimes cracks after scoring when folding the print. Does anyone have experience scoring a printed image and then folding it?
Any other feedback would be appreciated. Especially if anyone has switched to the Canon pro 1000 from the Epson 3880.
Thank you in advance,
Jim Palik
-
Mark: With a lot of help from you, I've recently replaced my 3880 with the PRO-1000, and I'm now trying to test Canon's Premium Fine Art Smooth paper. After 20 minutes of web search, I cannot find Canon's ICC profile for this paper (or any of their papers) anywhere. There was a set of profiles with the printer driver but it didn't include this one. Help, please?
-
Mark: With a lot of help from you, I've recently replaced my 3880 with the PRO-1000, and I'm now trying to test Canon's Premium Fine Art Smooth paper. After 20 minutes of web search, I cannot find Canon's ICC profile for this paper (or any of their papers) anywhere. There was a set of profiles with the printer driver but it didn't include this one. Help, please?
Please send me your email address.
Mark
-
Sorry, I don't use Tapatalk. Please PM me through this Forum's Message service.
Mark
-
Hopefully Mark is still reviewing comments or questions. I have read the entire review and nothing there talks about paper registration. I posted the following request under another topic but have not gotten any replies. Can you please help here.
I currently have an Epson 3880. I am happy with the print quality of the 3880 but I have two unique problems. I print photographic art greeting cards, 4-up on B3+ paper.
1. The 3880 does not register each sheet perfectly. It is OK for individual prints but if I print 10 or 20 sheets at a time they will all vary by either a minor skew or miss-register by a millimeter or two. This makes it impossible to take a stack of prints to a large paper cutter and group cut them. Each B3+ must be cut by hand. I have the same problem with folding.
Can you tell me if the Canon vacuum feed registers multiple prints accurately?
2. I score every print for folding. The ink on the 3880 sometimes cracks after scoring when folding the print. Does anyone have experience scoring a printed image and then folding it?
Any other feedback would be appreciated. Especially if anyone has switched to the Canon pro 1000 from the Epson 3880.
Thank you in advance,
Jim Palik
Sorry Jim, but I seem to have missed this. Anyhow better late than never and you haven't lost anything useful from me over the interval, because I can't answer these questions. I have not tested the accuracy of paper throughput over numerous sheets being fed from a stack of paper in the feeder because I print one sheet at a time, always, and I hadn't seen evidence before of reader interest in this matter. But for what it's worth in a one-sheet-at-a-time scenario, the Canon Pro-1000 has never misfeed a sheet or delivered a paper skew error in all the time I have been working with it. Nor have I tested what happens to ink once one scores the printed sheet. I trust you appreciate these are very specialized concerns so a reviewer would not necessarily anticipate them and test for them.
-
To close out my Sep 20 post above, in case anyone else experiences this problem, here's how Canon helped me fix the case of the missing Fine Art Smooth:
There were two related problems we were trying to solve. First, I didn’t have the FineArtSmooth icc. Second, in the Media Type pulldown, I didn’t have the Premium Fine Art Smooth media type under Fine Art Papers.
The tech and I walked through the list of media types, and I had every single one except FAS. We confirmed that the problem wasn’t a LR problem because it occurred in LR, PS, Preview, and Powerpoint. And I had every other Canon paper icc profile except FAS.
It was an odd process. He took me through a couple of normal exercises (which I had already tried, but tried again in case he did something different): re-loading the driver, re-updating firmware. Each time, we closed LR, rebooted the Mac, but no cigar. I think what finally did it was the Canon Media Configuration Tool, which is normally used for adding new 3rd party papers but we used it to add the FAS media type. Again, closed Lightroom, rebooted the computer, but no change.
He was stumped and said he needed to talk to “engineering” and he’d call me back. He never did call me back. But, after lunch and a final desperate reboot, somehow the FAS icc and media types showed up. All I can think of was that the Media Configuration Tool did the trick, but for some reason it took TWO reboots for the change to take hold.
In any event, I was generally pleased with Canon support. I'm pleased with the PRO-1000 so far. And FAS is a nice paper.