Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: keithcooper on April 10, 2016, 02:53:44 pm
-
Yay! - Canon have sent me a PRO-1000 for a review :-)
If anyone has any specific questions, please do let me know (here or email me at Northlight), since they are much easier to address whilst I've actually got the printer here - that and it makes sure I don't forget stuff ;-)
Testing paused for the moment while I wait for more ink to turn up.
Initial thoughts are that print quality is very good - I'm still testing what differences the gloss coat has, but for lustre papers I'm choosing the 'coat the whole sheet' option, especially for B&W.
BTW I've asked for official comment on the page length issues, and will include any reply I get.
Oh and once again I'm glad two people delivered it, it's not something I'd want to lift out of the box on my own...
-
Thanks Keith, looking forward to your review. And while you're at it, please give us the benefit of your bottom line (it's subjective. we all know that. we want it anyway.). Would you be satisfied with the printer as mission-critical professional tool in your workflow?
-
Could you do some tests on canvas? If Canon left you any canvas samples to test out that would be great. Would like to know about shadow detail. Thanks
Gar
-
Thanks Keith, looking forward to your review. And while you're at it, please give us the benefit of your bottom line (it's subjective. we all know that. we want it anyway.). Would you be satisfied with the printer as mission-critical professional tool in your workflow?
After some initial profiling and a few test prints (not that much - someone sent it out with rather low ink levels) it's surpassing some aspects of my old iPF8300 - enough to make me even more keen to try out a PRO-2000 later in the year ;-)
Given the solidity of paper feeding, I'm puzzled by Canon's choice of max page length.
This reminds me of the margin issues with the previous PRO printers, which fortunately have been removed (with a driver checkbox) in the PRO-1000.
So, yes for my smaller prints, this one is definitely hits my quality mark (as does the P800). I've lots more I want to test, but I like it rather more than I did the PRO-1.
-
Could you do some tests on canvas? If Canon left you any canvas samples to test out that would be great. Would like to know about shadow detail. Thanks
Gar
Not a printer I'd choose for canvas myself, but I chopped of a length of Innova Bright white matte canvas off a 17" roll and loaded it via the main feed.
Printed off a profiling target - looks fine using the Canvas media setting (well fine for a matte canvas ;-)
-
It would certainly be nice to have some more discussion of the degree of advantage of using the "all over" vs "where needed" CO options on different paper types. While I agree with your general "just deal with it" philosophy for ink costs, it's still interesting to know if one needs to deal with it... :)
-
It would certainly be nice to have some more discussion of the degree of advantage of using the "all over" vs "where needed" CO options on different paper types. While I agree with your general "just deal with it" philosophy for ink costs, it's still interesting to know if one needs to deal with it... :)
The web server for the printer keeps job information. For several profiling targets I've printed two versions one with auto gloss coat and one with 'full' coating. The only change is in gloss coat usage - I'll try a few more of these and be sure to include the info.
The gloss coat seems at its best for lustre papers, but gloss differential is one of those 'problems' that becomes more and more visible to you once you start testing for it, and generally invisible once the print is on a wall ;-) I know it takes some effort to get clear photos of it for reviews - something I draw attention to, lest it gets overplayed as a problem.
-
The web server for the printer keeps job information. For several profiling targets I've printed two versions one with auto gloss coat and one with 'full' coating. The only change is in gloss coat usage - I'll try a few more of these and be sure to include the info.
The gloss coat seems at its best for lustre papers, but gloss differential is one of those 'problems' that becomes more and more visible to you once you start testing for it, and generally invisible once the print is on a wall ;-) I know it takes some effort to get clear photos of it for reviews - something I draw attention to, lest it gets overplayed as a problem.
As I may have mentioned in my review of this printer on this website some weeks ago, the CO only works for PK papers. When you choose MK papers the printer driver turns it off. On the question of which option to use - full coat or the "Auto" option, which coats where there is density of ink, Canon recommends the full coat for optimum quality; however I found the CO cartridge drains pretty fast using that option. I think users need to test both options on the same photo and decide which they can live with.
As for the length limitation issue, I think the best you will likely find out is also what I said there. If any one hears any more from a reliable source, that would be useful to know; but I expect there will be no official word on this matter unless or until Canon decides on something they want to make public.
-
Another CO related thought: since Canon calls it Chroma Optimiser and not Gloss Optimizer, and claims it's about extending gamut, it would be interesting to know if there is any apparent difference in its use when you use the printer's B&W mode. Obviously not for MK compatible papers, but on gloss/perle/baryta types.
-
Another CO related thought: since Canon calls it Chroma Optimiser and not Gloss Optimizer, and claims it's about extending gamut, it would be interesting to know if there is any apparent difference in its use when you use the printer's B&W mode. Obviously not for MK compatible papers, but on gloss/perle/baryta types.
CO is also expanding contrast - depth of black reaches L*=1, so there's apparent difference in B&W mode as well.
-
Then there is the issue of the cleaning cycle: MHMG noted that the Pro-1 initiated a cleaning cycle if it went more than 60 hours without use, or if the printer was unplugged and then re-connected.
Quantifying the amount of ink used for the pro-1 required long-term averaging, but maybe the web-server monitors also ink use during cleaning cycles?
-
Another CO related thought: since Canon calls it Chroma Optimiser and not Gloss Optimizer, and claims it's about extending gamut, it would be interesting to know if there is any apparent difference in its use when you use the printer's B&W mode. Obviously not for MK compatible papers, but on gloss/perle/baryta types.
Although I'm printing profiling targets with and without full page coverage, there is not an option to turn off the coating completely that I can see?
So, any difference I'll see is probably going to be confined to changing paper white and low ink areas. The profiles I make will include measurement data, so if anyone wants to experiment let me know when the review is done?
-
Then there is the issue of the cleaning cycle: MHMG noted that the Pro-1 initiated a cleaning cycle if it went more than 60 hours without use, or if the printer was unplugged and then re-connected.
Quantifying the amount of ink used for the pro-1 required long-term averaging, but maybe the web-server monitors also ink use during cleaning cycles?
Just the ink used for print (no need to scare the horses ;-) )
Here are two entries from the web log - A large profiling target printed on a lustre finish paper with full and auto CO (A3 paper ~2300 i1iSis target)
underlaying colour ink usage seems similar, although for some paper types it seems to vary a bit (need to check this though) - when more ink turns up...
-
Not a printer I'd choose for canvas myself, but I chopped of a length of Innova Bright white matte canvas off a 17" roll and loaded it via the main feed.
The 1000 printhead appears to be the same in the 2000 (24" printer) and the 4000 (44" printer) so the quality on canvas or any media should be the same. The inks should be the same also. The nice thing about this 1000 printer is that the media is fed by suction, rather than the pizza wheels on the P800. I mainly print on canvas so I would like to see the quality on canvas, especially how the printer handles shadow detail. I am leaning toward the P10000 because of the 4 levels of black. I would guess that give more shadow detail. So, any feedback you can give on shadow detail on canvas would be much appreciated with this printer.
Gar
-
The 1000 printhead appears to be the same in the 2000 (24" printer) and the 4000 (44" printer) so the quality on canvas or any media should be the same. The inks should be the same also. The nice thing about this 1000 printer is that the media is fed by suction, rather than the pizza wheels on the P800. I mainly print on canvas so I would like to see the quality on canvas, especially how the printer handles shadow detail. I am leaning toward the P10000 because of the 4 levels of black. I would guess that give more shadow detail. So, any feedback you can give on shadow detail on canvas would be much appreciated with this printer.
Gar
Based on the extensive amount of testing and print preparation I've done of real world photographs for my own work, as well as for the reviews of the Epson 4900, P800, Canon Pro-1000 and Epson Legacy papers, I am of the view that the most important determinants of shadow detail are the kind of paper you use and your skill at image editing in the shadow tones. As Marcin mentioned and my own tests also demonstrated, you can get down to about L*1 with the Canon Pro 1000 (in fact I got below 1 using their B&W mode and Pro Luster paper). The advantage of this of course is that it stretches the gamut a bit in the deep quartertones, making it easy to eek out a bit more shadow detail.
And Keith, no - as far as I could determine there is no way to completely shut off CO (except to use MK paper, where it doesn't get applied by default). It is the Auto or Full coat option on PK papers.
-
Not much I can add from this test I'm afraid.
The only canvas I ever use (and rarely at that) is one of the Innova glossy ones (if a 36 or 56 iirc) which profiles like a lustre photo paper.
All the matte samples i have would need varnish/coating which I don't have here.
-
underlaying colour ink usage seems similar, although for some paper types it seems to vary a bit (need to check this though) - when more ink turns up...
Am I the only one surprised to see non-zero use of both MK and PK ?? Admittedly the quantity of MK used was tiny...
-
Am I the only one surprised to see non-zero use of both MK and PK ?? Admittedly the quantity of MK used was tiny...
I have not yet decided which aspects of this printer surprise me ;-)
-
Just the ink used for print (no need to scare the horses ;-) )
Here are two entries from the web log - A large profiling target printed on a lustre finish paper with full and auto CO (A3 paper ~2300 i1iSis target)
underlaying colour ink usage seems similar, although for some paper types it seems to vary a bit (need to check this though) - when more ink turns up...
At the time I was preparing my review this kind of detailed ink consumption information was not yet available, at least through the OSX version of the driver/firmware. I am glad you published it here and find it most interesting in two respects: firstly, between about 27~30% of total ink use per print is the CO alone; secondly, apart from CO the printer uses only a modest amount of ink considering the size of the sheet and the likelihood that most of it is filled with the target. But beyond those observations, I would just like to add that the overhead involved in maintenance (under the hood cleaning cycles) does need to be accounted in order to fully understand the cost of ink. This cannot be done on a print by print basis because it is circumstantial, depending mainly on printer usage characteristics which vary a lot from user to user. So it is necessary, over time, to estimate this using the inventory approach method, which requires careful record keeping. I should also add that while many tend to be focused primarily on the cost of ink, again depending on several variables, it is often the paper that turns out to be the single biggest cost element per print - and then of course the value you put on your time for doing the work in the first place.
-
At the time I was preparing my review this kind of detailed ink consumption information was not yet available, at least through the OSX version of the driver/firmware.
...
It's still not via the OS X driver afaik - the examples are from the built-in web server of the printer.
It took 6 months of use of my iPF8300 to come up with an ink cost - it was about half my initial business guesstimate (the one for costing) I kept the larger cost to cover incidentals and ink lost in head swaps. My main cost is paper. I generally work on the basis that if doubling my ink costs made much of a difference to my profitability, then it says I'm working too cheaply and not charging enough for my time...
The nice thing about doing the reviews is that it lets me run through half a box of paper just to test an idea or see if a setting when editing is important - not something I'd be so keen to do if it was my own printer/ink ;-)
-
The 1000 printhead appears to be the same in the 2000 (24" printer) and the 4000 (44" printer) so the quality on canvas or any media should be the same. The inks should be the same also. The nice thing about this 1000 printer is that the media is fed by suction, rather than the pizza wheels on the P800. I mainly print on canvas so I would like to see the quality on canvas, especially how the printer handles shadow detail. I am leaning toward the P10000 because of the 4 levels of black. I would guess that give more shadow detail. So, any feedback you can give on shadow detail on canvas would be much appreciated with this printer.
Gar
Number of black inks has little to no impact on shadow detail - after all, it's possible to have fantastic shadows detail using just a single black ink. What lighter inks (and smaller droplet sizes) help with is in smoothness of graduations, and also a little in highlight details (since you can put lighter black dots closer together).
Shadow detail is largely dependent on the print medium (the smoother the medium, the more detail) and on the RIP/profile used to print it. You shouldn't need to modify the image to fit the printer - the profile should be set so that every tone from full white to full black is distinguishable, and the entire image fits within that range.
-
Number of black inks has little to no impact on shadow detail - after all, it's possible to have fantastic shadows detail using just a single black ink. What lighter inks (and smaller droplet sizes) help with is in smoothness of graduations, and also a little in highlight details (since you can put lighter black dots closer together).
Shadow detail is largely dependent on the print medium (the smoother the medium, the more detail) and on the RIP/profile used to print it. You shouldn't need to modify the image to fit the printer - the profile should be set so that every tone from full white to full black is distinguishable, and the entire image fits within that range.
Thanks Shadowblade !!! :) I will be doing a lot of experimentation on shadow detail with my new P10000 and comparing it to my 9900. I like that the P10000 doesn't have to change between PB and MB. I also like the speed of the printer.
-
Thanks Shadowblade !!! :) I will be doing a lot of experimentation on shadow detail with my new P10000 and comparing it to my 9900. I like that the P10000 doesn't have to change between PB and MB. I also like the speed of the printer.
If you want the best in shadow detail, use a RIP.
Like default settings in cameras and RAW converters, many canned profiles are designed to give you greater midtone contrasts at the expense of shadow and highlight detail. Essentially, it's applying a curve to an image which has already had curves applied. What you really want is a flat response curve, with pure black (and only pure black) giving you the lowest-possible L value, and pure white (and only pure white) giving you the highest possible L value (which may or may not mean zero ink coverage, depending on the colour neutrality of the paper).
-
If you want the best in shadow detail, use a RIP.
Like default settings in cameras and RAW converters, many canned profiles are designed to give you greater midtone contrasts at the expense of shadow and highlight detail. Essentially, it's applying a curve to an image which has already had curves applied. What you really want is a flat response curve, with pure black (and only pure black) giving you the lowest-possible L value, and pure white (and only pure white) giving you the highest possible L value (which may or may not mean zero ink coverage, depending on the colour neutrality of the paper).
Thanks Shadowblade! We mainly reproduce fine art paintings and hardly any work with camera files. The art has been scanned in to produce a file and we use photoshop to print from that. The files are at least 300mb and scanned in at 360dpi. In your opinion what tools in Photoshop would bring out the greatest shadow detail. I have had a ICC profile produced for Epson Exhibition Matte Canvas and the 9900. Sometimes we let the printer manage the colors and sometimes use the profile and let Photoshop manage the colors. Can't tell much of a difference. Any advice would be great.
Gar
-
If you want the best in shadow detail, use a RIP.
Like default settings in cameras and RAW converters, many canned profiles are designed to give you greater midtone contrasts at the expense of shadow and highlight detail. Essentially, it's applying a curve to an image which has already had curves applied. What you really want is a flat response curve, with pure black (and only pure black) giving you the lowest-possible L value, and pure white (and only pure white) giving you the highest possible L value (which may or may not mean zero ink coverage, depending on the colour neutrality of the paper).
I agree that the number of Black inks does not necessarily affect shadow detail; however it is not necessary to use a RIP for obtaining the extent of shadow detail and smoothness of tonal gradations suitable for most photographs. This is best assured by skilled image editing and using a high-bit workflow. In respect of Gar's specific requirements, the shadow detail eventually possible in the print will also depend heavily on how the paintings were scanned. No doubt Gar knows that the scanning process itself should keep the quartertones "open" so the tonal gradations and the detail can be reproduced in print. If those are lost by shadow clipping in the scan, they are unrecoverable.
-
I agree that the number of Black inks does not necessarily affect shadow detail; however it is not necessary to use a RIP for obtaining the extent of shadow detail and smoothness of tonal gradations suitable for most photographs. This is best assured by skilled image editing and using a high-bit workflow. In respect of Gar's specific requirements, the shadow detail eventually possible in the print will also depend heavily on how the paintings were scanned. No doubt Gar knows that the scanning process itself should keep the quartertones "open" so the tonal gradations and the detail can be reproduced in print. If those are lost by shadow clipping in the scan, they are unrecoverable.
I guess you can either apply a compensatory curve to the image, or to the ink limiting curves - I just prefer to do it in the printer.
When processing an image, I like the tones and contrast I see on screen to be the same as what comes out in the print. That is, if I can see a difference between (0, 0, 0) and (5, 5, 5) on-screen, or if I can see detail in a dark part of an image which is all below (15, 15, 15) I'd like to be able to see it in the print too - without having to apply a compensatory curve in Photoshop for printing, after I'm already done editing it.
-
I agree that the number of Black inks does not necessarily affect shadow detail; however it is not necessary to use a RIP for obtaining the extent of shadow detail and smoothness of tonal gradations suitable for most photographs. This is best assured by skilled image editing and using a high-bit workflow. In respect of Gar's specific requirements, the shadow detail eventually possible in the print will also depend heavily on how the paintings were scanned. No doubt Gar knows that the scanning process itself should keep the quartertones "open" so the tonal gradations and the detail can be reproduced in print. If those are lost by shadow clipping in the scan, they are unrecoverable.
Thanks Mark! The original pieces of art were scanned in by a reproduction house. What tools in Photoshop would YOU use to get the maximum details in the shadows without lightening the pic: Curves, Saturation, Brightness, Contrast, Shadows/Highlights, selective color? Some of these tools can really make the canvas reproduction look overly processed.
Gar
-
Thanks Mark! The original pieces of art were scanned in by a reproduction house. What tools in Photoshop would YOU use to get the maximum details in the shadows without lightening the pic: Curves, Saturation, Brightness, Contrast, Shadows/Highlights, selective color? Some of these tools can really make the canvas reproduction look overly processed.
Gar
I do 99% of my image editing work in Lightroom and very seldom need to use Photoshop. I use whichever tools the photograph needs, under softproof, and watch what my adjustments are doing to the appearance of the photograph. Doing this under softproof is essential to avoid surprises coming out of the printer. The ultimate constraints in a print workflow are the printer, the paper, the profile, the inks and from those the resulting gamut and dynamic range. (For example, the lowest L* reading I obtained from Epson Legacy Fibre paper in a P800 using the Epson ABW mode was 15. Any image information below 15 is therefore unavailable in print.) Within those constraints you use the editing tools in the image processing application to optimize the results. For working particularly on shadow detail, there are no hard rules, but I often find playing between Exposure, Shadows, Blacks, Clarity and Contrast goes a long way to achieve the needful, while in some cases the Lightroom Tone Curve, starting-off from linear, can be tweaked to advantage. All of this can be usually managed without making the photograph look over-processed - in fact one wants to avoid that and usually can, but so much is image-dependent. It is good to begin this workflow without preset "Auto" Adjustments, as you often find yourself having to undo what the Auto did before getting to what you want. Years ago, I was able to smarten-up shadow detail quite a bit in Photohop using several Blend Modes with masks, but since Lightroom has become such a powerful image editor, I have not had reason to revert to those rather intensive techniques.
-
How are the print results with uncoated watercolour paper (e.g. Arches Hot Press)? The ink has a heavier pigment load than the previous generation of printers, and seems a bit more viscous as well, so I'm guessing it should do better gamut-wise.
-
How are the print results with uncoated watercolour paper (e.g. Arches Hot Press)? The ink has a heavier pigment load than the previous generation of printers, and seems a bit more viscous as well, so I'm guessing it should do better gamut-wise.
Did you address this question to me or to Keith Cooper, or another poster?
-
Did you address this question to me or to Keith Cooper, or another poster?
To the thread in general, I guess, since this seems to be the thread for test results and experimentation with the Pro-1000...
-
OK; all my tested papers results for the Pro-1000 and the Epson Legacy papers in the P800 and the Canon Pro-1000 appear in my reviews of the Pro-1000 and the Epson Legacy papers on this website:
Epson Legacy Papers Review (https://luminous-landscape.com/new-epson-legacy-papers-review/)
Canon Pro-1000 review (https://luminous-landscape.com/canon-imageprograf-pro-1000-printer-review/)
-
Mark - thank you very much for your very detailed and informative review.
I try to decide between the p800 and the pro 1000 and have a question about the black level: is the black level of the pro 1000 with matte papers as good as with the p800? I tried to find out by comparing your pro 1000 review with you p800 review, but the papers used are different.
Regards -
Marc
-
Mark - thank you very much for your very detailed and informative review.
I try to decide between the p800 and the pro 1000 and have a question about the black level: is the black level of the pro 1000 with matte papers as good as with the p800? I tried to find out by comparing your pro 1000 review with you p800 review, but the papers used are different.
Regards -
Marc
Please refer to Figure 7 in my review of the Epson Legacy papers on this website where you will find a plethora of information on B&W printing characteristics for 23 combinations of papers, printer, profiles.
-
Please refer to Figure 7 in my review of the Epson Legacy papers on this website where you will find a plethora of information on B&W printing characteristics for 23 combinations of papers, printer, profiles.
Thanks Mark. Found it. That helps.
According to your numbers the P800 has slightly deeper blacks on matte papers, but only very little.