Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: rick_k on February 12, 2016, 12:21:35 pm
-
Is LuLu going to publish a review of these 2 printers as a result of the week they did back December 13? If so, when will it be out?
Thanks,
Rick
-
Rick,
I already wrote a review of the P800 published on this website some time ago. Check it out. A Canon Pro-1000 review is in the works, but progress got interrupted due to some personal matters; I cannot say exactly when it will be ready for publication, however we are on the case, so stay tuned. I hope it won't be too too long from now.
-
We are also working on some interesting videos and articles about printing but lately we have been busy on a lot of projects and travel. The list is long and we will get through it.
-
Meanwhile, here's another review:
http://froknowsphoto.com/canon-pro-1000-real-world-review/
-
Thanks for all the replies. Just anxious to read your thoughts and any concerns, tips, tricks, etc.
Also, I appreciate your renewed/reinvigorated coverage of the printing art....
Rick
-
Meanwhile, here's another review:
http://froknowsphoto.com/canon-pro-1000-real-world-review/
Wow, Fro is obnoxious to listen to.
-
Meanwhile, here's another review:
http://froknowsphoto.com/canon-pro-1000-real-world-review/
Thanks, but I'll wait for Mark!!
Rich
-
Wow, Fro is obnoxious to listen to.
Personal taste, I find him relatively free of BS.
-
I get in line to see the review of Mark, as an I have not read any quality review on that printer.
Thanks in advance Mark!
-
I really appreciate all yours' interest in what I'll have to say. I've had some personal issues over the past month, but I'm chugging along on it. Takes real time to do this stuff, one hopes sufficiently to be useful.
-
Wow, Fro is obnoxious to listen to.
I commented on his blog page that reviewing a printer without a calibrated monitor seemed strange. The max print length of 22", which the reviewer presented as inconspicuous, was also mentioned. Both comments were deleted I notice.
-
I hope Canon release a roll paper adapter for this at some stage, just like Epson did - 22" is very limiting for those who shoot panoramas or other wider aspect ratios, and can't even handle a 16x24" print. Epsons just aren't very user-friendly unless you use them every day, with constant head-clogging problems when printing infrequently, and, at least in the past, have had a much less permanent inkset than Canon or HP. But, without a roll printing option for the Canon, they're pretty much the only 17" option for landscape photography.
-
I hope Canon release a roll paper adapter for this at some stage, just like Epson did - 22" is very limiting for those who shoot panoramas or other wider aspect ratios, and can't even handle a 16x24" print. Epsons just aren't very user-friendly unless you use them every day, with constant head-clogging problems when printing infrequently, and, at least in the past, have had a much less permanent inkset than Canon or HP. But, without a roll printing option for the Canon, they're pretty much the only 17" option for landscape photography.
I would be very surprised to see a roll adapter for the Canon Pro-1000 because I suspect the printer would need to be engineered for that from the get-go and as far as I can tell, it was not. But there may be a workaround on the maximum length issue about which I am trying to achieve insight.
As for the Epson printers being user-friendly or not, it depends on the model. The 4900 needs regular and frequent use or it will clog and need cleaning. The 3880, and from what I am experiencing now with the new P800 this is not the case. They can sit idle for quite a while without causing difficulty.
-
I vaguely remember Mike Chaney had a work-around to defeat length limitations in his "Qimage"software.
-
I vaguely remember Mike Chaney had a work-around to defeat length limitations in his "Qimage"software.
It doesn't work for sheet feed printers, only printers with roll feed and a banner mode.
Brian A
-
I would be very surprised to see a roll adapter for the Canon Pro-1000 because I suspect the printer would need to be engineered for that from the get-go and as far as I can tell, it was not. But there may be a workaround on the maximum length issue about which I am trying to achieve insight.
Shouldn't the right RIP software be able to bypass the length restriction?
A roll adapter need not be a powered one - it doesn't need to be much more than a toilet roll holder that unspools as the paper is drawn into the printer.
As for the Epson printers being user-friendly or not, it depends on the model. The 4900 needs regular and frequent use or it will clog and need cleaning. The 3880, and from what I am experiencing now with the new P800 this is not the case. They can sit idle for quite a while without causing difficulty.
How long is 'quite a while' - 6 days, 6 weeks or 6 months? With no nozzle remapping and no large number of backup nozzles, I doubt it will be as dependable as HP or Canon printers when not used daily.
Any word on the longevity of Epson HDX inks yet, now that they've updated the yellow?
Still, if it's far less prone to clogs than the 7900/9900, it could be a very good Piezography platform for black-and-white prints.
-
Shouldn't the right RIP software be able to bypass the length restriction?
A roll adapter need not be a powered one - it doesn't need to be much more than a toilet roll holder that unspools as the paper is drawn into the printer.
How long is 'quite a while' - 6 days, 6 weeks or 6 months? With no nozzle remapping and no large number of backup nozzles, I doubt it will be as dependable as HP or Canon printers when not used daily.
Any word on the longevity of Epson HDX inks yet, now that they've updated the yellow?
Still, if it's far less prone to clogs than the 7900/9900, it could be a very good Piezography platform for black-and-white prints.
There should be RIP or RIP-type software that can bypass the length restriction but whether any of it has yet been adapted to this printer is a question I am, so far unsuccessfully, trying to get a handle on.
How long is "quite a while" is an unanswerable question in a general sense because it depends on the printer model and the environment it is sitting in. I have experience with an Epson 3800 that went unused for a year and when restarted just needed a regular cleaning cycle of all the nozzles. I have experience of my Epson 4900 (with quite new pump/cap and damper assemblies) that went unused for ten days recently and required power-cleaning of all the channels before it worked properly. The Epson P800 sat an equivalent period of time; I believe it did an auto-cleaning as I opened it and the nozzle check was fine. Different printers, different stories.
Wilhelm-Imaging says it will have print permanence data on the HDX inkset in March 2016. You can follow this on their website if you are good at picking through its non-design.
-
There should be RIP or RIP-type software that can bypass the length restriction but whether any of it has yet been adapted to this printer is a question I am, so far unsuccessfully, trying to get a handle on.
Probably still needs an update for a relatively-new printer...
How long is "quite a while" is an unanswerable question in a general sense because it depends on the printer model and the environment it is sitting in. I have experience with an Epson 3800 that went unused for a year and when restarted just needed a regular cleaning cycle of all the nozzles. I have experience of my Epson 4900 (with quite new pump/cap and damper assemblies) that went unused for ten days recently and required power-cleaning of all the channels before it worked properly. The Epson P800 sat an equivalent period of time; I believe it did an auto-cleaning as I opened it and the nozzle check was fine. Different printers, different stories.
I mean compared with other large-format printers out there. You can leave a HP or Canon sitting idle for months, power it up and it just works (after a bit of automatic cleaning/remapping).
In contrast, I went away for 6 weeks and my 7900 (which I only got second-hand to run non-Epson inks) was clogged beyond repair, and no longer worth repairing.
Where does the P800 seem to sit on the spectrum?
Wilhelm-Imaging says it will have print permanence data on the HDX inkset in March 2016. You can follow this on their website if you are good at picking through its non-design.
Not sure how much stock to put in Wilhelm's values - the allowances they give for fading are so generous that practically everything lasts 'centuries' there. I suppose it still works if you compare them to other printer/paper combinations, and interpolate the resulting ratio from Aardenburg data.
-
The P800 is too new on the market to have accumulated enough data for reliable performance estimates in respect of clogging from non-use.
Unless you are a print permanence specialist with in-depth knowledge of the testing procedures deployed in both Wilhelm-Imaging and Aardenburg I don't see how you can "interpolate" anything reliably. As far as I know they are just different approaches. And it isn't clear whether or when Aardenburg will have insight on these inks. At least from Wilhelm there is an estimated date. As far as Wilhelm's allowances for fading, what you say just isn't accurate. Read a variety of their results for different papers, printers and inks under different combinations of circumstances and you will see that not everything is rated in centuries. All of these testing procedures use projection methodologies that have limitations, therefore like all forward-looking statements they are probabilistic and we may never know how accurate the base estimates were. This is not a reason to malign the comparative usefulness of the work being done.
-
Mark, I have been able to find only one estimate of the price of a new print head for the pro 1000. It came out at US$1295.88.
I asked the vendor if this was accurate and he replied that he checked with Canon and it seems it's correct. "Atlex", on the other hand, in a post on this forum tells us that it's not user replaceable.
Now,obviously, few are going to buy a printer where a new head costs about the same as a new printer. None of the above seems right to me and I wondered if you could check with your Canon contact as to what the real situation regarding replacement of heads is.
Thanks.
-
Everybody who buys a 17" Epson professional printer is essentially buying a print head. The print head is pre-installed and needs a technician to replace it; if you need to replace it, by the time you net out the value of ink with a new printer you may as well buy a new printer. So this is nothing new.
The Canon Pro-1000 print head is user-replaceable - in fact you install it as you install the inks when you set the printer up. As for the price, where did you get that price from? It would be way too soon for people to be replacing printheads, as the printer just hit the market. For other professional Canon printer models the print heads were in the range of USD 400~500, so USD 1300 seems rather out of line.
-
In reading the manual, I didn't see anywhere where it had the user install the head, nor any replacement instructions.
-
It is probably in the installation instructions rather than the manual (it should be in both but it is a Canon manual).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxHmxIX3hnM
Brian A
-
I checked the site with the $1295 print head: for other printers their prices seem genuine, ie the pro-100 is $147, with RRP of $210.
Obviously it's not a serious price, since it's the same as the printer (or maybe you get a free printer and full inks with every order...).
-
I checked the site with the $1295 print head: for other printers their prices seem genuine, ie the pro-100 is $147, with RRP of $210.
Obviously it's not a serious price, since it's the same as the printer (or maybe you get a free printer and full inks with every order...).
Again, WHAT site? lease provide a hyperlink to that price.
-
In the other current thread on the pro-1000:
http://www.inkjetprinthead.com/canon_printhead_for_imageprograf-pro-1000.htm
-
Thanx