Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: keithcooper on March 04, 2016, 10:54:09 am
-
I wasn't expecting to see any info about these for a bit, but as per Canon's usual printer announcements someone rushes ahead (CPN in this case)
Canon have said they will send me one for a review when available, so not for a few months. In the meantime I'll update any info I get at:
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/printers/canon_pro2000-4000.html
The initial CPN info is at
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/news/canon_launches_new_large_format_printers.do
-
Great! Thanks for the info and, please, keep us posted!
The only thing I could not understand was this:
Maximum number of delivered prints
Standard position: 1 sheet
Flat position: A2 landscape, glossy paper less than 10 sheets, Coated paper less than 20 sheets (excludes strong curled condition)
Regards.
-
It appears that the new Canon pro 4000 has only one printhead (1.28" wide) that is larger than the previous one. The 6400, 8400, 9400 use two printheads (1.07" wide). The new 6000S (60" wide) only has 8 inks. It also says the new printers have twice the speed of the previous models, Wi-Fi and direct print from USB memory sticks. They have a new ink set and new chassis.
Gar
-
Outstanding printers, I can't wait to get my hands on PRO-4000 :D
-
They only come with 160ml starter cartridges unlike the 330ml carts the previous 8xxx printers came with.
Thats about $1000 US less ink, hopefully the price will reflect the difference. Somehow I doubt it.
-
Super! Thanks for sharing. Can't wait to find out if the new inkset can match Epson's amazing dmax and gamut on fine art matte papers, traditionally a weak spot for Canon. And also if the Chroma Optimizer can be used on matte papers to seal the hydrophyllic print surface, and perhaps extend the life of the print a little more.
I also hope the paper handling is improved so as not to mark soft papers like Canon Rag Photographique.
The new design is extremely cool. Lower weight and smaller footprint than the previous model, 8400. The standby mode uses only 1/3 as much power than the 8400, which is great for our bills and good for the environment.
It's difficult to see where the main roll unit is. The product images seem to show the secondary, optional unit where the roll of paper is loaded. The main unit may be behind the transluscent covers. Well thought out to minimize dust settling there!
Oh I can't wait to try out one in person!
-
Single head! Does anyone knows if it is user replaceable? I have a 1 year old dead epson 7900 in my basement! i don't want a printer i can't change the head unless it offers a free 3 year waranty, or the price of that warranty is low, i.e lower than the price of the printer.
Canon and Epson are moving... Good and exciting news.
-
Single head! Does anyone knows if it is user replaceable? I have a 1 year old dead epson 7900 in my basement! i don't want a printer i can't change the head unless it offers a free 3 year waranty, or the price of that warranty is low, i.e lower than the price of the printer.
Canon and Epson are moving... Good and exciting news.
It's listed as a consumable... so at least only the one head will need replacing at a time ;-)
-
I'd be careful interpreting the 1 head business: already there were "S" and "SE" versions of the X400 series, which were cheaper with fewer inks. In particular, the "SE" had a single head and six inks.
So my impression was that both the 2000 and 4000 used two heads printing 6 inks each, whereas the 4000S used a single head and fewer inks... being aimed at "banner printing" etc.
-
Only Pro-6000S >:(
wondering if they will release the Pro-6000 soon?
ac
-
I'd be careful interpreting the 1 head business: already there were "S" and "SE" versions of the X400 series, which were cheaper with fewer inks. In particular, the "SE" had a single head and six inks.
So my impression was that both the 2000 and 4000 used two heads printing 6 inks each, whereas the 4000S used a single head and fewer inks... being aimed at "banner printing" etc.
The new head has 3x4 channels in a single head.
-
The new single printhead is also user replaceable.
-
I'd be careful interpreting the 1 head business: already there were "S" and "SE" versions of the X400 series, which were cheaper with fewer inks. In particular, the "SE" had a single head and six inks.
So my impression was that both the 2000 and 4000 used two heads printing 6 inks each, whereas the 4000S used a single head and fewer inks... being aimed at "banner printing" etc.
Your impression should perhaps be based on what's been published ;-)
The new head from last week's info
(http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/printers/printers-images/pro2000/pf-10_print-head.jpg)
"The imagePROGRAF PRO-2000 sports a fully integrated print head enabling even faster printing in 12-colours with exceptional print quality. A compact 1.28” wide head enables efficient, high-precision ink ejection without discrepancies. This new print head has a 3-chip configuration with four colours per chip in a single print head, and outputs 12-colour ink from a total of 18,432 nozzles. The new print head is wider than the current 1.07-inch wide print head, and enables even faster printing while still maintaining high print quality."
-
How much is the print head, and how long does it last? That would be the most relevant info.
What is the longevity of the new inkset? Epson's has improved significantly, and it is rumored from tests of the Canson desktop unit they they are going backwards? Just wondering.
-
How much is the print head, and how long does it last? That would be the most relevant info.
What is the longevity of the new inkset? Epson's has improved significantly, and it is rumored from tests of the Canson desktop unit they they are going backwards? Just wondering.
Whilst I might get a head price in time for a review, its life expectancy will just have to wait for real use. I'd think there might be enough info for a reliable guesstimate by this time next year.
As to the ink life - rumours and conjecture count for little, that said, my own lifetime guarantee for prints gets a day less tomorrow... ;-)
-
I find the economics of this new printhead quite interesting. With the old one, when you had to replace it, you were only wasting half the ink. Of course, if both had to be replaced within weeks of eachother, which was usually the case, then this point was moot. If anything, having to then buy 2 new heads was likely more than twice as expensive as if it was only one.
So going forward, how much more expensive will this new head be seeing as its essentially doing the work of what you needed two heads for with the previous printers? Canon should be selling half the number of heads now, so will they really want to pass this cost savings to consumers? Or will this actually lead to a cost savings for the consumer with this new head design now being twice the price of the previous head since we needed two of them.
Also, given the configuration of the colors, its not like you had one head which had the top six used colors, while the other had the 6 least used ones, which could theoretically mean that you were replacing the lesser used one much less frequently. Unless there was physical damage to only one head, most issues ranging from regular use to electrical issues usually meant that both were replaced.
There are simply too many factors to consider, but I do find this quite interesting.
-
I'd predict that the new head will cost 1.7x times the old head cost.
-
"To see the new imagePROGRAF PRO series in action, visit Canon at the FESPA Digital 2016 show at the RAI exhibition and conference centre in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, from 8-11 March, Stand F100-F120."
Is anyone planning on attending this show in Amsterdam?
-
Just checked out the list of inks and they've replaced the Green ink with the Chroma Optimizer. I'm really interested in how the final prints look from these printers.
-
Ok.....was wishing the 4000 were about $1K cheaper...........
Pricing Info (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/canon-expands-imageprograf-pro-series-with-four-new-models-for-the-fine-art-photographic-and-production-signage-markets-300231766.html)
Availability
These imagePROGRAF PRO models are expected to be available in late spring of 2016. The imagePROGRAF PRO-4000 is available for an MSRP of $5,995 or $6,995 with the addition of the optional Multifunction Roll System. The imagePROGRAF PRO-2000 is available for an MSRP of $2,995, or $3,795 with the optional Multifunction Roll System. The imagePROGRAF PRO-6000S comes standard with the Multifunction Roll System at a Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) of $9,995. The imagePROGRAF PRO-4000S is available for an MSRP of $4,995, or $5,995 with the optional Multifunction Roll System. The previously announced PRO-1000 is available for an MSRP of $1,299.99.
For more information, visit www.usa.canon.com.
-
Just checked out the list of inks and they've replaced the Green ink with the Chroma Optimizer. I'm really interested in how the final prints look from these printers.
I always felt that the red and blue made a bigger visible difference for my 8300 in my photos, although the R/G/B inks were (by quite a margin) the last of the original 300ml carts to run low.
In looking at recent iPF printers I did wonder how much a gloss coat would change things - looking forward to hearing what people find in 'real life' printing. I rarely use glossy papers, so the slight gloss differential was never a serious issue for me.
When comparing a profile made for the P7000 (llk) I've got here at the moment with the same paper on my 8300, the increase in gamuts from the Or/Grn on the P7000 and the Red/Blue on the 8300 are noticeable. Less so the green on the 8300. I'd just point out that 'noticeable' in profiling doesn't mean 'obvious' in any print IMHO ;-)
As it stands, I'd be happy producing my prints on either the 8300 or P7000, with the P7000 managing a bit more density, and definitely pulling ahead in a general 'usability' comparison with my own 8300 or the 6450 I had here for a while.
-
The IPF6450 specifies that for cut sheet paper fed through its top slot, it is possible to get 3mm margins on all sides of the paper. The Windows driver implements this; RIPs like Caldera, Ergosoft, and Onyx do not. I'm wondering if the PRO-2000 model allows for 3mm margins on cut sheet paper.
-
I like that the physical size of these new printers are smaller than their predecessors. So I guess the only weak link is the longevity of the of the ink set, if its the same as the 1000 printer.
-
Saw both these printers at WPPI in Las Vegas today. Canon rep said they should be available in June.
He said they don't have the cost of the new head yet but expects it to be a little less than the cost of
replacing both heads on the 8XXX series. MSRP for the PRO4000 $5995 as mentioned by "Breacher".
Pro 4000 comes with 190ML starter cartridges. Just slightly more than half of the ink that the current IPF8400 comes with.
Talking to one of there resellers in another booth, sounds like the street price will not be discounted as much
as their LF printers in the past. They said Canon is adopting a policy similar to Apple, where no reseller can sell
below a set price. So bottom line, they will cost more and come with less ink than the current IPF8400.
While the differences in the 8xxx series printers were subtle, these printers are a major redesign. The user experience is supposed to be very
similar, but under the hood they are very different.
Didn't see any prints, rep said the display models were prototypes. The Pro 4000 was about 12-14" narrower, height and depth about the same as
a 8xxx series. He did say ink fade resistance is better than the past, he said Wilhelm is working on it now.
-
He did say ink fade resistance is better than the past, he said Wilhelm is working on it now.
If that is true, it would be so swell.
-
I always felt that the red and blue made a bigger visible difference for my 8300 in my photos, although the R/G/B inks were (by quite a margin) the last of the original 300ml carts to run low.
The added RGB hues to CMY inks are used only at the corresponding hue angles and when sufficient saturation levels are reached. At least that is what I see happen in the HP prints made with 11 inks. This requires smart color mixing algorithms, HP has that in the OEM driver, Canon will have that but for example the Wasatch Softrip driver for the HP Z's did not have that. I could see RGB ink dots in the neutral patches where there was absolutely no need for color inks like that. Yes, for RGB inks the carts could be smaller than for the CcMmY inks. With my Z3200, the Light Grey, Yellow, Light Magenta, Matte Black empty fast, Red and Blue way slower. The Red, Blue and Green increase the gamut without doubt but little ink is needed for that.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
January 2016 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
So, that's probably $800-900.00 US for the print head. That's very close to Epson so they better last longer than what they have now. The problem with that scenario is that if only one single nozzle is dead you have to replace the whole unit. Most of the time when I have to replace a Canon head it is because of one nozzle, not multiple nozzles. Actually I think that has always been the case. Often the same with Epson in the past. Hp really had by far the best solution with having 6 heads with dual channels attached. That allowed them to charge $75.00 for a print head, and they last even longer than the Canon heads. Both are thermal.
They should have provided an option to add another gray. I don't need a gloss enhancer that scratches easily, but I'm sure some people will like it. Seems like it would be doable for them to write software that allowed you to choose either. That would be excellent. Don't know how committed they are to bw.
It will be probably be a year before we know if Epson or Canon wastes less ink and has less troubles. If Epson has reduced the size of their nozzles in order to eliminate clogging, they are going to be hard to beat. Maybe they will both be good, hopefully.
john
Saw both these printers at WPPI in Las Vegas today. Canon rep said they should be available in June.
He said they don't have the cost of the new head yet but expects it to be a little less than the cost of
replacing both heads on the 8XXX series. MSRP for the PRO4000 $5995 as mentioned by "Breacher".
Pro 4000 comes with 190ML starter cartridges. Just slightly more than half of the ink that the current IPF8400 comes with.
Talking to one of there resellers in another booth, sounds like the street price will not be discounted as much
as their LF printers in the past. They said Canon is adopting a policy similar to Apple, where no reseller can sell
below a set price. So bottom line, they will cost more and come with less ink than the current IPF8400.
While the differences in the 8xxx series printers were subtle, these printers are a major redesign. The user experience is supposed to be very
similar, but under the hood they are very different.
Didn't see any prints, rep said the display models were prototypes. The Pro 4000 was about 12-14" narrower, height and depth about the same as
a 8xxx series. He did say ink fade resistance is better than the past, he said Wilhelm is working on it now.
-
Hopefully they'll bring out an updated 60/64" model soon to compete with Epson's new 20000?
(though that may be unlikely as their current 60" model is not that old)
I'd love them to announce a 72 or 80+" version.
-
Hopefully they'll bring out an updated 60/64" model soon to compete with Epson's new 20000?
(though that may be unlikely as their current 60" model is not that old)
I'd love them to announce a 72 or 80+" version.
They have. Its the Pro 6000s a 60" 8 color printer.
https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/printers/professional-printers/canon-imageprograf/imageprograf-pro-6000s
-
The IPF6450 specifies that for cut sheet paper fed through its top slot, it is possible to get 3mm margins on all sides of the paper. The Windows driver implements this; RIPs like Caldera, Ergosoft, and Onyx do not. I'm wondering if the PRO-2000 model allows for 3mm margins on cut sheet paper.
According to Canon's French web site, it can print with 3mm at the sides but with cut sheet it needs 20mm top & bottom, for roll-feed it can do 3mm at the bottom but 20mm at the top (or the other way around).
They also specified the maximum print length as 18m (60ft), since someone asked :-)
-
It appears as if the Pro-4000 uses the same printhead that is in the Pro-1000. It is the same size (1.28") and the same amount of nozzles (18,432).
Gar
-
It appears as if the Pro-4000 uses the same printhead that is in the Pro-1000. It is the same size (1.28") and the same amount of nozzles (18,432).
Gar
Makes complete sense to have the entire family of printers use the same spare parts to reduce R&D and manufacturing costs. I suspect the inks are the same too, and if anything the driver tables could also be the same too. So ink longevity and gamut tests on the Pro-1000 could give us a very good idea of how the print quality will be from these new large formats. I'm most concern about the paper handling abilities of these new printers. The Canon 8400 marks up/leaves indentations on softer papers from too much pressure applied by the pinch rollers.
-
They have. Its the Pro 6000s a 60" 8 color printer.
https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/printers/professional-printers/canon-imageprograf/imageprograf-pro-6000s
Yes, but unless I'm misunderstanding that's one of the 'S' versions (not sure if it stands for 'Speed' or 'Signage'!) and not really for fine art printing.
A regular 6000 is needed, not 6000S. The art world is full of large prints headed to museums, they need 12 colors, not 8.
-
I find the economics of this new printhead quite interesting. With the old one, when you had to replace it, you were only wasting half the ink. Of course, if both had to be replaced within weeks of eachother, which was usually the case, then this point was moot. If anything, having to then buy 2 new heads was likely more than twice as expensive as if it was only one.
Let me make it a bit more complicated: Last month I had to replace the right printhead of my 8400. I was curious about how much ink is actually wasted on the process, so I weighted the carts (all of them) before and after the replacement. To my surprise I noticed it drains inks from BOTH heads even when you replace just one. Yes, it sounds absurd but it drained 9ml (average) from every cart, 108ml total.
With that in mind and considering that we usually have to replace the other head within weeks or few months, having just one head may not be so worse if it costs a bit less than two. I still prefer HP's approach with six inexpensive heads though.
-
Let me make it a bit more complicated: Last month I had to replace the right printhead of my 8400. I was curious about how much ink is actually wasted on the process, so I weighted the carts (all of them) before and after the replacement. To my surprise I noticed it drains inks from BOTH heads even when you replace just one. Yes, it sounds absurd but it drained 9ml (average) from every cart, 108ml total.
With that in mind and considering that we usually have to replace the other head within weeks or few months, having just one head may not be so worse if it costs a bit less than two. I still prefer HP's approach with six inexpensive heads though.
Well I can't argue with your excellent methodology. The trouble is that spending so much of a new printhead is a bit of a kick in the teeth. I would love to put in a new head every 6 months if it was only $250. I find that as they age, the printer cleans more anyway, does more nozzle checks, and just basically scares you since you know the end time is near. After all this time, these heads should be much cheaper by now.
-
How much is the print head, and how long does it last? That would be the most relevant info.
What is the longevity of the new inkset? Epson's has improved significantly, and it is rumored from tests of the Canson desktop unit they they are going backwards? Just wondering.
Is the reduced longevity confirmed through testing, or just conjectured, based on the fact that Canon gave a more conservative estimate (50-75 years or something) instead of simply saying (100+ years) as with previous inks?
It would be very disappointing if true. At the same time, it's hard to imagine that a more-concentrated ink with a heavier pigment load would have less longevity than a less-concentrated ink. Unless they've gone and done something like replaced the yellow pigment with a less-permanent but more-intense version (like Epson in the K3 and HDR inksets) - but that would be stupid, given that longevity is such a big selling point for photo prints, which are usually intended for long-term display or archiving rather than short-term, point-of-sale display.
-
So, that's probably $800-900.00 US for the print head. That's very close to Epson so they better last longer than what they have now. The problem with that scenario is that if only one single nozzle is dead you have to replace the whole unit. Most of the time when I have to replace a Canon head it is because of one nozzle, not multiple nozzles. Actually I think that has always been the case. Often the same with Epson in the past. Hp really had by far the best solution with having 6 heads with dual channels attached. That allowed them to charge $75.00 for a print head, and they last even longer than the Canon heads. Both are thermal.
They should have provided an option to add another gray. I don't need a gloss enhancer that scratches easily, but I'm sure some people will like it. Seems like it would be doable for them to write software that allowed you to choose either. That would be excellent. Don't know how committed they are to bw.
It will be probably be a year before we know if Epson or Canon wastes less ink and has less troubles. If Epson has reduced the size of their nozzles in order to eliminate clogging, they are going to be hard to beat. Maybe they will both be good, hopefully.
john
I thought Canon and HP printers remapped the nozzles to compensate for blockages, so that many nozzles need to fail before you start seeing missing lines, etc. - just that printing gets slower and slower as less of the head becomes usable. That's why Canon and HP printers may only appear to 'clog' once in 2 years, whereas Epson printers, which do not remap, start dropping lines when even one nozzle is clogged, so start showing problems after only a few days of inactivity.
-
I thought Canon and HP printers remapped the nozzles to compensate for blockages, so that many nozzles need to fail before you start seeing missing lines, etc. - just that printing gets slower and slower as less of the head becomes usable. That's why Canon and HP printers may only appear to 'clog' once in 2 years, whereas Epson printers, which do not remap, start dropping lines when even one nozzle is clogged, so start showing problems after only a few days of inactivity.
Not Exactly. Canon and HP heads have spare nozzles that are remapped as active nozzles when the the original nozzles get blocked beyond what a simple cleaning can rescue. The printing process dos not get slower because of that. The difference is that Canon (as far as I could feel) has more spare nozzles and will likely demand a new head before you notice a missing line, while HP heads have less spare nozzles (some say they have none, actually) and when you notice missing lines that a cleaning would not solve, just put a new head (quite inexpensive compared to Canon).
-
I've wondered that too, does the Z series remap the nozzles buy having redundant nozzles available. . My heads last twice as long as the Canon heads. Thing is, the Z printers just don't waste ink. You can tell it by the ink levels in the carts and the fact that the waste tank goes for years and years and years without having to be swapped out. I don't know what they did but they certainly are efficient! Both Canons and Epsons waste a lot of ink in cleaning. In my experience Epson wastes the most. With their new head design they may cut a lot of that out with the larger nozzles.
Not Exactly. Canon and HP heads have spare nozzles that are remapped as active nozzles when the the original nozzles get blocked beyond what a simple cleaning can rescue. The printing process dos not get slower because of that. The difference is that Canon (as far as I could feel) has more spare nozzles and will likely demand a new head before you notice a missing line, while HP heads have less spare nozzles (some say they have none, actually) and when you notice missing lines that a cleaning would not solve, just put a new head (quite inexpensive compared to Canon).
-
In contrary to PF-05 there's no expected life span indicated for the new head design, and it also has less nozzles. My wild guess is that it will be much more durable and less prone to potential failures.
-
How much is the print head, and how long does it last? That would be the most relevant info.
What is the longevity of the new inkset? Epson's has improved significantly, and it is rumored from tests of the Canson desktop unit they they are going backwards? Just wondering.
Here's the only info I've seen on the new Canon Inkset...and it comes from Canon's specification sheet for the Pro-1000 you can find on the Canon USA website:
"PRINT LONGEVITY 10*
Gas Fastness
Approx. 60 Years
Light Fastness
Approx. 60 Years (PT-201, i.e Canon Pro Platinum paper)
Approx. 45 Years (LU-101, ie., Canon Pro Luster paper)
Longevity in Photo Album
Approx. 200 Years
10* Based on accelerated testing by Canon in dark storage under controlled temperature, humidity, and gas conditions, simulating storage in an album with plastic sleeves. Canon cannot guarantee the longevity of prints; results may vary depending on printed image, drying time, display/storage conditions, and environmental factors."
Note that Canon tested in house, not with an independent lab, and has not stated the test conditions or failure criteria for its test methodology, so it's anyone's guess but likely to be similar to WIR's test methods. Hence, taken at face value for what Canon claims as a 45-60 year lightfastness rating on its RC papers and what Epson is claiming (i.e.,200+ year ratings on select Epson media), this leads the enduser or print buyer to ponder a 3-4x difference in light fastness for prints on display when comparing the latest fine art printer offerings from these two companies. Yikes ::)
Whether the Canon results are as bad as it sounds depends to a great extent on how much value you place on the archival properties of your prints, but for this class of printers, I would be surprised if either Canon or Epson management are oblivious to these scores.
Also, the choice of media can also influence pigment print longevity by 3-4x or more in its own right, so neither company is truly providing adequate guidance to endusers regarding optimal media choices for the highest archival keeping requirements. Artists are pretty much on their own to choose both inks and media wisely, and good information is unfortunately very limited.
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Here's the only info I've seen on the new Canon Inkset...and it comes from Canon's specification sheet for the Pro-1000 you can find on the Canon USA website:
"PRINT LONGEVITY 10*
Gas Fastness
Approx. 60 Years
Light Fastness
Approx. 60 Years (PT-201, i.e Canon Pro Platinum paper)
Approx. 45 Years (LU-101, ie., Canon Pro Luster paper)
Longevity in Photo Album
Approx. 200 Years
10* Based on accelerated testing by Canon in dark storage under controlled temperature, humidity, and gas conditions, simulating storage in an album with plastic sleeves. Canon cannot guarantee the longevity of prints; results may vary depending on printed image, drying time, display/storage conditions, and environmental factors."
Note that Canon tested in house, not with an independent lab, and has not stated the test conditions or failure criteria for its test methodology, so it's anyone's guess but likely to be similar to WIR's test methods. Hence, taken at face value for what Canon claims as a 45-60 year lightfastness rating on its RC papers and what Epson is claiming (i.e.,200+ year ratings on select Epson media), this leads the enduser or print buyer to ponder a 3-4x difference in light fastness for prints on display when comparing the latest fine art printer offerings from these two companies. Yikes ::)
Whether the Canon results are as bad as it sounds depends to a great extent on how much value you place on the archival properties of your prints, but for this class of printers, I would be surprised if either Canon or Epson management are oblivious to these scores.
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Who knows what the endpoints were, though, or the definitions of 'normal display' used - was it 200 lux or 1000 lux, for 8, 10 or 12 hours a day? How much fading was considered acceptable? I'd guess that there isn't a fourfold difference between the Canon and Epson inksets, and wouldn't even bet on which one is more lightfast under the same test conditions - odds are they used very different criteria.
Although, assuming 450 lux for 12 hours a day, 45-60 years comes out to 89-118 Mlux-hours, which would be pretty good for a RC paper if the endpoint were defined as 'just noticeable fading'...
-
Yikes indeed! For the art market, it seems Canon has managed to grab defeat from the jaws of victory. The world wants pantone colors and day glow gamut apparently. I'll hang on to my 8300 and Z printers until we see how the Epson P 10K works out.
john
Here's the only info I've seen on the new Canon Inkset...and it comes from Canon's specification sheet for the Pro-1000 you can find on the Canon USA website:
"PRINT LONGEVITY 10*
Gas Fastness
Approx. 60 Years
Light Fastness
Approx. 60 Years (PT-201, i.e Canon Pro Platinum paper)
Approx. 45 Years (LU-101, ie., Canon Pro Luster paper)
Longevity in Photo Album
Approx. 200 Years
-
... Although, assuming 450 lux for 12 hours a day, 45-60 years comes out to 89-118 Mlux-hours, which would be pretty good for a RC paper if the endpoint were defined as 'just noticeable fading'...
No manufacturer has been willing to embrace tougher or superior testing criteria in the last 30 years I've been involved in this type of testing, so why would Canon unilaterally adopt a "just noticeable" fade criterion now? It would make no sense from a marketing perspective, especially considering the typical consumer was "educated" long ago to believe these ratings for years on display are somehow absolute values. When I routinely hear a photographer say, "Well, I won't be around in 25 or 30 years so a 60 year rating is plenty good enough"... he or she is believing that rating in absolute terms...until perhaps the 60 year rated print process is put on display in the studio's front window to advertise the photographers artistry to the public. Wherein the photographer is surprised to observe noticeable fading in perhaps less than a year and it must be replaced. A 4x improvement in the overall fade resistance would have allowed for 3-4 years of commercial display life in the same situation.
That said, I agree this particular 3-4x light fastness difference between the new printer offerings may not hold up to more scrutiny. The claims are puzzling to say the least.
-
No manufacturer has been willing to embrace tougher testing criteria in the last 30 years I've been involved in this type of testing, so why would Canon unilaterally adopt a "just noticeable" fade criterion now? It would make no sense from a marketing perspective, especially considering the typical consumer was "educated" long ago to believe these ratings for years on display are somehow absolute values. When I routinely hear a photographer say, "Well, I won't be around in 25 or 30 years so a 60 year rating is plenty good enough"... he or she is believing that rating in absolute terms...until perhaps the 60 year rated print process is put on display in the studio's front window to advertise the photographers artistry to the public. Wherein the photographer is surprised to observe noticeable fading in perhaps less than a year and it must be replaced. A 4x improvement in the overall fade resistance would have allowed for 3-4 years of commercial display life in the same situation.
That said, I agree this particular 3-4x light fastness difference between the new printer offerings may not hold up to more scrutiny. The claims are puzzling to say the least.
At the same time, they also claimed 'better longevity' than the old inkset.
Besides, if the new inks were judged by the same standards as the existing inks, it would be a colossal failure of both technology and marketing for Canon to come out and claim a 50% reduction in print longevity. It would practically scream to the world, 'go and buy the old printers/inks, the new ones are crap'.
-
Yikes indeed! For the art market, it seems Canon has managed to grab defeat from the jaws of victory. The world wants pantone colors and day glow gamut apparently. I'll hang on to my 8300 and Z printers until we see how the Epson P 10K works out.
There is 50 megalux hour data posted on the Aardenburg website (testing is ongoing) for two media types in side-by-side comparative testing of Epson HD, Canon LUCIA EX, and Epson K3 ink sets. You can filter the Aardenburg database on "batch" = "N" to quickly find this set of tests.
Epson HD is now clearly and handily outperforming the K3 ink set and should hold up perhaps even better than Epson's 2x claim of improvement over the K3 yellow. LUCIA EX is still on top with both media, however, that could change at higher exposure doses if additional non linearity creeps into the fading curves as the testing goes beyond 100 megalux hours. We just have to wait and see, but so far so good for LUCIA EX performance compared to Ultrachrome HD. Goodbye, K3!
So, how might Canon have gone backwards in their new ink set? Well, it would be highly unlikely to be caused either by the chroma optimizer or the extra photo gray. The green ink got removed which would put more burden on the yellow ink stability when forming bright greens, and the blue ink has been reformulated, but those primary red, green, and blue colors don't get tested in a Wilhelm type of lightfade test. That leaves the possibility of Canon's newly reformulated magenta in the new LUCIA Pro ink set as having traded some light fade resistance for higher color purity. Magenta does get tested in the WIR test method, but it's unclear to me by anything I've read to date that Canon has even contracted with WIR for more testing. Even the WIR testing that was done on the LUCIA EX and the Pro-1 inks occurred quite some time ago, and the reports say more papers would be added but they never were. So, all and all, Canon appears to be staking its longevity claims on it's own in house testing without revealing the testing criteria and coming up with seemingly "poorer" score compared to what WIR published for past Canon pigmented ink sets, and that's their story at this time.
I personally won't invest in either a Pro-2000 or a Pro-4000 until I can produce some Aardenburg light fastness tests on the new Canon ink set. My most economical pathway to that goal is the purchase of a Pro-1000 which uses the same ink set, but regretably it's not looking like I will be able to raise the necessary funds for any new tests any time soon.
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
At the same time, they also claimed 'better longevity' than the old inkset.
Besides, if the new inks were judged by the same standards as the existing inks, it would be a colossal failure of both technology and marketing for Canon to come out and claim a 50% reduction in print longevity. It would practically scream to the world, 'go and buy the old printers/inks, the new ones are crap'.
I haven't been able to find any wording from Canon that claims "better longevity" compared to earlier pigmented ink set like LUCIA EX. Better this and better that but not better longevity. Perhaps you can provide us a link or a copy of the quote where this claim was stated.
One thing is for sure. Canon's internal testing of new ink formulations is much more extensive than what Canon reveals, so in all likelihood Canon really does know the answer to whether the new Canon Pro 1000/2000/4000 ink set is equal to, better, or worse in light fade resistance than the older pigmented sets like LUCIA EX. If they know it's better or merely equal to earlier ink sets, then Canon management has seriously dropped the ball to allow this current situation where printmakers like myself are earnestly looking at Canon's stated longevity ratings and observing discrepancies with earlier Wilhelm tests which suggest the new ink set is now less stable. Canon does indeed appear by all indications to be carefully messaging the new printer promotional literature like a company that did decide to quietly give up some print longevity for other system attributes on its newest line of printers. Canon, please say it ain't so :'(
-
I know one thing, whenever I hear the word "Pro" I hold on to my wallet.
john
-
I know one thing, whenever I hear the word "Pro" I hold on to my wallet.
john
;D ;D ;D
-
If the ink had an improved longevity, I'm sure any company would highlight that in its press release.
-
If the ink had an improved longevity, I'm sure any company would highlight that in its press release.
As I noted earlier, the older Canon Lucia EX is holding its own very well in direct competition with the newer Epson UCHD ink set according to the Aardenburg Imaging & Archive light fade testing protocol. Canon could have left the ink longevity properties alone and still been very competitive with respect to print longevity in its newest round of high end photo printers to hit the market. Hence, it's bewildering that Canon has not taken the appropriate steps to assure customers that its newest "Lucia Pro" ink set, although reformulated, is not at least equal in archival properties to the Canon pigmented ink sets which precede it. Rather, Canon's published claims, the only ratings currently existing for the newest Canon ink set, suggest but don't adequately confirm that Canon has elected to "detune" the longevity performance in favor of other initial image quality attributes.
For anyone concerned about archival properties, this leaves the new line of Canon printers somewhat in a current state of uncertainty. There are many reasons to upgrade to a new printer. However, if print longevity is a feature that you care about, then Canon has left us with remarkable uncertainty about this specific property. I for one won't retire my ipf8300 in favor of a new Canon model upgrade until I get more clarity about Canon's newest ink set in terms of accurate print longevity ratings. If forced to replace my Canon ipf8300 today, then Epson's newest line of printers and corresponding ink set(s) hold out much more apparent promise to meet my print longevity requirements than the newest Canon printer models, not because I know the comparative longevity properties of each printer and ink set for certain, but because Canon has done such a poor job explaining its latest print longevity rating rationale in comparison to Epson's latest claims. Canon's 45-60 year light fastness rating would generally meet my expectations if based on the Aardenburg testing protocol and an indoor light level of 450 Lux average daily illumination, not so much if based on the Wilhelm testing protocol. Yet Canon has not explained how it arrived at this figure, so it's of little use. Not a sound and reassuring way to choose any printer, IMHO.
cheers,
Mark
-
As I noted earlier, the older Canon Lucia EX is holding its own very well in direct competition with the newer Epson UCHD ink set according to the Aardenburg Imaging & Archive light fade testing protocol. Canon could have left the ink longevity properties alone and still been very competitive with respect to print longevity in its newest round of high end photo printers to hit the market. Hence, it's bewildering that Canon has not taken the appropriate steps to assure customers that its newest "Lucia Pro" ink set, although reformulated, is not at least equal in archival properties to the Canon pigmented ink sets which precede it. Rather, Canon's published claims, the only ratings currently existing for the newest Canon ink set, suggest but don't adequately confirm that Canon has elected to "detune" the longevity performance in favor of other initial image quality attributes.
For anyone concerned about archival properties, this leaves the new line of Canon printers somewhat in a current state of uncertainty. There are many reasons to upgrade to a new printer. However, if print longevity is a feature that you care about, then Canon has left us with remarkable uncertainty about this specific property. I for one won't retire my ipf8300 in favor of a new Canon model upgrade until I get more clarity about Canon's newest ink set in terms of accurate print longevity ratings. If forced to replace my Canon ipf8300 today, then Epson's newest line of printers and corresponding ink set(s) hold out much more apparent promise to meet my print longevity requirements than the newest Canon printer models, not because I know the comparative longevity properties of each printer and ink set for certain, but because Canon has done such a poor job explaining its latest print longevity rating rationale in comparison to Epson's latest claims. Canon's 45-60 year light fastness rating would generally meet my expectations if based on the Aardenburg testing protocol and an indoor light level of 450 Lux average daily illumination, not so much if based on the Wilhelm testing protocol. Yet Canon has not explained how it arrived at this figure, so it's of little use. Not a sound and reassuring way to choose any printer, IMHO.
cheers,
Mark
Exactly.
Although, how hard would it really be for a manufacturer to release multiple inksets for the one printer? As in, a super-wide-gamut one for prepress and advertising work (possibly pigment mixed with dye, since longevity isn't a concern there), a set for maximum longevity, even a black-and-white set (pure carbon, plus a few colour cartridges for toning). It would make for an extremely versatile, high-quality print system, rather than the current one-size-fits-all approach. Epson has already done it in a very limited way, with the option of LLK or V in the P7000/P9000.
-
I personally won't invest in either a Pro-2000 or a Pro-4000 until I can produce some Aardenburg light fastness tests on the new Canon ink set.
Mark, out of interest: supposing eventually the new and old inks turned out to have near-identical light-fastness... would you still buy one of the new printers?
I'm coming from the comment often read that there is no longer any real difference in image quality between Epson and Canon (and that presumably meaning the Canon CO doesn't add that much relative to the Epsons which don't have it). Admittedly, the 8300 is now two generations old... but do you forsee image improvements, or are there other issues beyond lightfastness and image quality that would motivate a new printer?
Presumably there will be some good prices on X400 series printers over the next few months...
-
I'm coming from the comment often read that there is no longer any real difference in image quality between Epson and Canon (and that presumably meaning the Canon CO doesn't add that much relative to the Epsons which don't have it). Admittedly, the 8300 is now two generations old... but do you forsee image improvements, or are there other issues beyond lightfastness and image quality that would motivate a new printer?
These new inks improve Dmax a fair bit, by using a more-concentrated ink, i.e. more pigment per millilitre of ink. It'd certainly be nice to get even richer, deeper blacks, particularly on matte paper.
Although increasing the pigment concentration really should increase longevity...
-
Now that is a Really good point. I have always wondered why they couldn't provide one inkset for all of these printers aimed at designers and pantone colors, one for photographers, and possibly even one for black and white enthusiasts, kind of like offset presses. I mean hell we've done all this for over a decade ourselves with rips the hard way.
A good example of this is back when Epson released the CF Archival inkset for the 10K printer people eventually complained about the gamut. They quickly released the Ultrachrome version of the same printer. They told all of us we would have to buy a totally new $10,000.00 printer to use it. That turned out to be bs. Many people started hacking into the carts and making 3rd party carts and put Ultrachome inks in them, reprofiled the media and everything was fine. Then people started using the MIS and Lyson inks in them. Same thing, perfectly good. I used mine for Piezography K6 and it worked perfectly for about 7 years until I switched printers. Having several lines of printers doing slightly different things seems insane to me, unless they are trying to sell shops more than one printer. Imagine if you had a 10-12 ink printer and you could put various combinations of Epson inks in them for different purposes. That's what you could do with the Rolands back in the day.
john
Exactly.
Although, how hard would it really be for a manufacturer to release multiple inksets for the one printer?
-
Mark, out of interest: supposing eventually the new and old inks turned out to have near-identical light-fastness... would you still buy one of the new printers?
I'm coming from the comment often read that there is no longer any real difference in image quality between Epson and Canon (and that presumably meaning the Canon CO doesn't add that much relative to the Epsons which don't have it). Admittedly, the 8300 is now two generations old... but do you forsee image improvements, or are there other issues beyond lightfastness and image quality that would motivate a new printer?
Presumably there will be some good prices on X400 series printers over the next few months...
Well, eventually I will have to buy a new WF printer if I want to keep printing my own work (which I do because I insist on total control of the process). My 8300 is getting old and having more printhead burnout issues with increasing frequency which suggests the motherboard may also be on the way out. At that point, the out of warranty repair bill goes a long way towards purchase of a new printer. Nevertheless, I will try to keep it running as long as feasible because the thought of just sending all this plastic and metal to a landfill with not much opportunity to recycle tugs at my environmental conscience.
I freely admit I'm not the manufacturers' target market for any big printer. I only print my personal work which puts me squarely in the low volume output user group, and printer reliability issues get magnified for those of us who aren't running our printers each and every day. That means I will have to spend some time studying how well the new crop of WF printers cope with lower frequency use. I have learned how to keep the ipf8300 reasonably happy by just running daily nozzle checks, and a small print or two once a week. I can handle that. But interestingly enough, the little Pro-1 I purchased several months ago, needs even more constant throughput to keep it from running many preemptive cleaning cycles. It's an unbelievable ink hog that makes my iPf83300 seem positively frugal by comparison. So, I will want to understand the new printer routine maintenance and reliability issues much better before pulling the trigger on a new one. Unfortunately, ink consumption and reliablity are not easily documented in the printer reviews since the printers are typically loaned to the reveiwer for relatively short periods of time. And relying on forums for the info also gets tricky because people tend to report mostly the horror stories, and it's hard to get any statistics on "the average enduser" experience. So, we all have to try to sort out signal to noise issues when forming impressions about printer reliability, and that simply takes time.
I tend to agree with you that all of the printers have reached an image quality state where drop size and screening patterns don't lead to easily noticeable differences in sharpness or "smoothness", especially on prints over 16x20 in size. Price, cost per print, reliability, media handling, and overall ease of use are all very big factors to consider when making a WF printer choice. The addition of a gloss or chroma optimizer is also feature I instinctively like very much, but only if it gives the enduser proper control when venturing away from RC media and truly eliminates the need for a post treatment coating step. The problem I have seen is that the manufacturers seem to be optimizing their optimizers for RC photo media, so it can sometimes fall quite short when used on other non RC media (the so called Baryta papers) because the microporous coatings on those third party media often suck up the clearcoat more than the RC media. If the user can't adjust the GlOP channel output, then it will often fall short on truly eliminating gloss differential on those fine art media. I use very little RC and none for any archival printing. Because i dislike gloss differential in inkjet pigment prints, i would therfore still have to resort to a post treatment spray for all glossy fine art media where the Glop doesn't take care of it, and in those situations, having the built in clearcoat feature fails to meet the intended objective, at least for me. I'd actually like to see one or more of the printer manufacturers market an easy to use standalone GLOP machine that has more coating thickness versatility, but I doubt that will ever happen.
The manufacturers seem to be concentrating in the latest generation of printers on Dmax and B&W output quality, and from what I've seen there, the improvements in these areas of image quality are noticeably real but subtle. They are also highly media dependent, so if one has a favorite glossy/luster paper that you use a lot (I like HN photo rag pearl very much), it is worth checking a new printer's output specifically on that paper before purchasing.
Too many interesting choices, too little time :)
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Now that is a Really good point. I have always wondered why they couldn't provide one inkset for all of these printers aimed at designers and pantone colors, one for photographers, and possibly even one for black and white enthusiasts, kind of like offset presses. I mean hell we've done all this for over a decade ourselves with rips the hard way.
A good example of this is back when Epson released the CF Archival inkset for the 10K printer people eventually complained about the gamut. They quickly released the Ultrachrome version of the same printer. They told all of us we would have to buy a totally new $10,000.00 printer to use it. That turned out to be bs. Many people started hacking into the carts and making 3rd party carts and put Ultrachome inks in them, reprofiled the media and everything was fine. Then people started using the MIS and Lyson inks in them. Same thing, perfectly good. I used mine for Piezography K6 and it worked perfectly for about 7 years until I switched printers. Having several lines of printers doing slightly different things seems insane to me, unless they are trying to sell shops more than one printer. Imagine if you had a 10-12 ink printer and you could put various combinations of Epson inks in them for different purposes. That's what you could do with the Rolands back in the day.
Presumably you would choose the inkset you wanted to use when you first set up the printer, and get a second printer if you wanted to run another inkset too - the cost of changing between inksets (draining the ink in the tubes, plus more to completely flush out the lines, etc.) would rapidly exceed the cost of a new printer if you changed inksets on a project-by-project basis.
It'd be really nice if they made a version of Piezography Carbon that worked with HP or Canon printers.
-
Mark,
I had to replace the main board on my 8300 this fall. It cost about $1,000.00. I had been running the printer everyday for 5 years. I was not really upset about doing that because this machine is built like a tank otherwise, I'd never had a day down, and I'd much rather do that than buy an 8400 which is no improvement. and have to hire 4 guys to dispose of this one and move in another one without breaking our backs.
I have been told that the main boards are very sensitive to power surges and surge protectors only go so far. We have a lot of storms in the end and beginning of summer so I always completely unplug my machines during storms now. If I'm away for a couple of days I do the same. Don't know if this has effected you but it's worth considering. I still love this printer and wouldn't trade it for one of the new ones.
john
Well, eventually I will have to buy a new WF printer if I want to keep printing my own work (which I do because I insist on total control of the process). My 8300 is getting old and having more printhead burnout issues with increasing frequency which suggests the motherboard may also be on the way out. At that point, the out of warranty repair bill goes a long way towards purchase of a new printer. Nevertheless, I will try to keep it running as long as feasible because the thought of just sending all this plastic and metal to a landfill with not much opportunity to recycle tugs at my environmental conscience.
I freely admit I'm not the manufacturers' target market for any big printer. I only print my personal work which puts me squarely in the low volume output user group, and printer reliability issues get magnified for those of us who aren't running our printers each and every day. That means I will have to spend some time studying how well the new crop of WF printers cope with lower frequency use. I have learned how to keep the ipf8300 reasonably happy by just running daily nozzle checks, and a small print or two once a week. I can handle that. But interestingly enough, the little Pro-1 I purchased several months ago, needs even more constant throughput to keep it from running many preemptive cleaning cycles. It's an unbelievable ink hog that makes my iPf83300 seem positively frugal by comparison. So, I will want to understand the new printer routine maintenance and reliability issues much better before pulling the trigger on a new one. Unfortunately, ink consumption and reliablity are not easily documented in the printer reviews since the printers are typically loaned to the reveiwer for relatively short periods of time. And relying on forums for the info also gets tricky because people tend to report mostly the horror stories, and it's hard to get any statistics on "the average enduser" experience. So, we all have to try to sort out signal to noise issues when forming impressions about printer reliability, and that simply takes time.
I tend to agree with you that all of the printers have reached an image quality state where drop size and screening patterns don't lead to easily noticeable differences in sharpness or "smoothness", especially on prints over 16x20 in size. Price, cost per print, reliability, media handling, and overall ease of use are all very big factors to consider when making a WF printer choice. The addition of a gloss or chroma optimizer is also feature I instinctively like very much, but only if it gives the enduser proper control when venturing away from RC media and truly eliminates the need for a post treatment coating step. The problem I have seen is that the manufacturers seem to be optimizing their optimizers for RC photo media, so it can sometimes fall quite short when used on other non RC media (the so called Baryta papers) because the microporous coatings on those third party media often suck up the clearcoat more than the RC media. If the user can't adjust the GlOP channel output, then it will often fall short on truly eliminating gloss differential on those fine art media. I use very little RC and none for any archival printing. Because i dislike gloss differential in inkjet pigment prints, i would therfore still have to resort to a post treatment spray for all glossy fine art media where the Glop doesn't take care of it, and in those situations, having the built in clearcoat feature fails to meet the intended objective, at least for me. I'd actually like to see one or more of the printer manufacturers market an easy to use standalone GLOP machine that has more coating thickness versatility, but I doubt that will ever happen.
The manufacturers seem to be concentrating in the latest generation of printers on Dmax and B&W output quality, and from what I've seen there, the improvements in these areas of image quality are noticeably real but subtle. They are also highly media dependent, so if one has a favorite glossy/luster paper that you use a lot (I like HN photo rag pearl very much), it is worth checking a new printer's output specifically on that paper before purchasing.
Too many interesting choices, too little time :)
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Mark,
I had to replace the main board on my 8300 this fall. It cost about $1,000.00. I had been running the printer everyday for 5 years. I was not really upset about doing that because this machine is built like a tank otherwise, I'd never had a day down, and I'd much rather do that than buy an 8400 which is no improvement. and have to hire 4 guys to dispose of this one and move in another one without breaking our backs.
I have been told that the main boards are very sensitive to power surges and surge protectors only go so far. We have a lot of storms in the end and beginning of summer so I always completely unplug my machines during storms now. If I'm away for a couple of days I do the same. Don't know if this has effected you but it's worth considering. I still love this printer and wouldn't trade it for one of the new ones.
john
Yup, all of what you said applies to my situation precisely. Some dealers I know keep trying to upsell me to an 8400 with really sweet deals, but the thought of moving another one of these monsters into my studio, and finding a home for the older 8300 is overwhelming. People often say to give these older printers to a local school, but I honestly don't think that's fair to the school unless a hefty ink endowment goes along with it ;D. Most public schools these days live on shoestring budgets for both their science classes and art programs that require reasonable material and supply budgets.
The historic house I live in sits back on a hill, and the electronic dog fence we installed seems to be a lightening magnet (who knew?). My 8300's motherboard fried early on due to a nearby lightening strike which also fried several hundred dollars worth of microprocessor controllers on my high tech heating system in the basement. I shut down all sorts of equipment nowadays whenever a storm seems imminent, the 8300 being at the top of my list. Fortunately, the 8300 was still under warranty at the time, and Canon kindly replaced the motherboard with no questions asked, but I'm pretty sure it was that one big EMP event from the lightening strike that did it in.
-
Well, eventually I will have to buy a new WF printer if I want to keep printing my own work (which I do because I insist on total control of the process). My 8300 is getting old and having more printhead burnout issues with increasing frequency which suggests the motherboard may also be on the way out. At that point, the out of warranty repair bill goes a long way towards purchase of a new printer. Nevertheless, I will try to keep it running as long as feasible because the thought of just sending all this plastic and metal to a landfill with not much opportunity to recycle tugs at my environmental conscience.
I freely admit I'm not the manufacturers' target market for any big printer. I only print my personal work which puts me squarely in the low volume output user group, and printer reliability issues get magnified for those of us who aren't running our printers each and every day. That means I will have to spend some time studying how well the new crop of WF printers cope with lower frequency use. I have learned how to keep the ipf8300 reasonably happy by just running daily nozzle checks, and a small print or two once a week. I can handle that. But interestingly enough, the little Pro-1 I purchased several months ago, needs even more constant throughput to keep it from running many preemptive cleaning cycles. It's an unbelievable ink hog that makes my iPf83300 seem positively frugal by comparison. So, I will want to understand the new printer routine maintenance and reliability issues much better before pulling the trigger on a new one. Unfortunately, ink consumption and reliablity are not easily documented in the printer reviews since the printers are typically loaned to the reveiwer for relatively short periods of time. And relying on forums for the info also gets tricky because people tend to report mostly the horror stories, and it's hard to get any statistics on "the average enduser" experience. So, we all have to try to sort out signal to noise issues when forming impressions about printer reliability, and that simply takes time.
I tend to agree with you that all of the printers have reached an image quality state where drop size and screening patterns don't lead to easily noticeable differences in sharpness or "smoothness", especially on prints over 16x20 in size. Price, cost per print, reliability, media handling, and overall ease of use are all very big factors to consider when making a WF printer choice. The addition of a gloss or chroma optimizer is also feature I instinctively like very much, but only if it gives the enduser proper control when venturing away from RC media and truly eliminates the need for a post treatment coating step. The problem I have seen is that the manufacturers seem to be optimizing their optimizers for RC photo media, so it can sometimes fall quite short when used on other non RC media (the so called Baryta papers) because the microporous coatings on those third party media often suck up the clearcoat more than the RC media. If the user can't adjust the GlOP channel output, then it will often fall short on truly eliminating gloss differential on those fine art media. I use very little RC and none for any archival printing. Because i dislike gloss differential in inkjet pigment prints, i would therfore still have to resort to a post treatment spray for all glossy fine art media where the Glop doesn't take care of it, and in those situations, having the built in clearcoat feature fails to meet the intended objective, at least for me. I'd actually like to see one or more of the printer manufacturers market an easy to use standalone GLOP machine that has more coating thickness versatility, but I doubt that will ever happen.
The manufacturers seem to be concentrating in the latest generation of printers on Dmax and B&W output quality, and from what I've seen there, the improvements in these areas of image quality are noticeably real but subtle. They are also highly media dependent, so if one has a favorite glossy/luster paper that you use a lot (I like HN photo rag pearl very much), it is worth checking a new printer's output specifically on that paper before purchasing.
Too many interesting choices, too little time :)
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Wouldn't you want to use a protective spray anyway, regardless of whether the printer had a gloss optimiser? The optimiser might reduce gloss differential, but so does the spray, and the optimiser does nothing for print longevity, UV protection or physical protection.
Besides, 100% coverage of the whole print means the tank doesn't go a long way, and gloss optimiser is much more expensive than spray.
Would rather have the green ink back any day, or an extra shade of black, than using up one of the heads with optimiser.
-
Wouldn't you want to use a protective spray anyway, regardless of whether the printer had a gloss optimiser? The optimiser might reduce gloss differential, but so does the spray, and the optimiser does nothing for print longevity, UV protection or physical protection.
Besides, 100% coverage of the whole print means the tank doesn't go a long way, and gloss optimiser is much more expensive than spray.
Would rather have the green ink back any day, or an extra shade of black, than using up one of the heads with optimiser.
I look for printer/ink/media combinations that meet my personal requirements for lightfastness without needing any additional top coat. Once I have identified an ink and media combination that achieves that objective (typically passing Aardenburg Conservation display rating limits at greater than 100 Mlux hrs), I believe the weak link for image permanence then moves to other factors such as humidity resistance, thermal stability, and resistance to cracking and/or delamination over time. Any additional light fade protection achieved by further treatments is welcome but not necessary in that situation unless it can be shown to beneficially influence the other properties as well. With traditional paintings, varnish coatings are both decorative and protective. When they finally discolor of fail in any way, they can usually be successfully removed by a paintings conservator and replaced. Inkjet prints have far too delicate an image receptor layer to stand up well to traditional conservation treatments, IMHO, so it's a one shot deal when you apply any top coat to an inkjet print.
i use sprays specifically to get rid of bronzing and gloss differential. To date, I have used traditional glazing methods for all of my prints on display (i.e. framed under glass or acrylic) and have not really been tempted yet to try the trendy new "naked print" look. If I do go that route, then I will either accept the fact that those unglazed inkjet prints on display will likely have significantly more limited display lifetimes, or I will move to a more robust coating/lamination method than can be achieved with typical low viscosity sprays like Hahnemuhle Protecitve Spray or PremierArt Print Shield.
The economics of gloss optimizer are more competitive with hand sprayed coatings than one might think. With low viscosity sprays, one bottle of spray often costs $15 or more and the yield is only a couple of dozen or so letter size prints. Pretty similar in outcome and price to the GO cartridge consumption in my Epson P400, IMHO. With hand spray techniques, one has to move the can well past the edges of the print to get even coverage, so there's a lot of inefficiency with respect to how much material is being wasted. An inkjet printer is far more efficient at getting the GLOP onto the paper!. Moving to HVLP spray equipment and water based acrylic emulsions that can be used at higher viscosities tips the economics in the right direction for hand spray applications, but almost every time I tested samples for AaI&A members who submitted coated versus uncoated samples with these water based emulsions, there were chemical interactions with the very fine inkjet pigment particles and/or encapsulation chemistry that caused a decline in fade resistance rather than an improvement or merely a break-even situation. So, no free lunch yet :(
As for one's personal preference for a green or extra black channel in lieu of a dedicated gloss optimizer channel, I accept your opinion as a valid personal choice. Such a preference might well tip the customer in Epson's direction with the new P7000/9000 or P10000/20000 printer models, for example. However, I suspect the folks at Canon have done a lot of focus group studies on what improvements their customers want, and so I note that the new Canon printers now opt for better B&W (with one more gray level) plus a gloss optimizer. Canon eliminated green, and made a special marketing point about how the magenta has been reformulated for better color which may offer a hint of some changes in lightfastness properties as I noted earlier, but it remains to be tested. All of Canon's changes in the new ink set suggests, at least as far as Canon is concerned, that only a minority of end users would rather stick with the older lUCIA EX configuration. I'm in that category myself, at least until I can determine if the new Canon WF printers deliver better CO channel control compared to its implementation in the consumer grade PR0-1 (which was Canon's first attempt at a clearcoat channel for photo printers AFAIK). I also need convincing evidence to show that the new LUCiA PRO ink set has equal to or better fade resistance compared to both the older LUCIA EX and to Epson's latest HDX ink set as well. So far, Canon has utterly failed to convince me that the print longevity properties of its new Pro-2000 and Pro-4000 printers are at least as good as I now have with my older iPF8300!
-
I look for printer/ink/media combinations that meet my personal requirements for lightfastness without needing any additional top coat. Once I have identified an ink and media combination that achieves that objective (typically passing Aardenburg Conservation display rating limits at greater than 100 Mlux hrs), I believe the weak link for image permanence then moves to other factors such as humidity resistance, thermal stability, and resistance to cracking and/or delamination over time. Any additional light fade protection achieved by further treatments is welcome but not necessary in that situation unless it can be shown to beneficially influence the other properties as well.
Polymer sprays (e.g. Hahnemuhle Protective Spray) certainly increase the resistance of prints to scuffing and physical abrasion, as well as improving lightfastness.
With traditional paintings, varnish coatings are both decorative and protective. When they finally discolor of fail in any way, they can usually be successfully removed by a paintings conservator and replaced. Inkjet prints have far too delicate an image receptor layer to stand up well to traditional conservation treatments, IMHO, so it's a one shot deal when you apply any top coat to an inkjet print.
Physical durability is one of the things that concerns me most when it comes to 'archivability' of photos, which is why I think mounting to Dibond is generally a good thing, despite its irreversability, and have become more and more interested in the potential of direct-to-substrate UV printing (which is both extremely lightfast and physically durable, when a UV-curable topcoat is added). After all, there are countless examples of images (photos, paintings, etc.) where the image itself is intact, but the substrate is falling apart or otherwise extremely fragile.
Following on an idea from here a few years ago, I've had a lot of success spraying Breathing Color Pura Velvet and Pura Smooth, as well as Moab Entrada Natural, with Timeless - diluted 5 parts Tiimeless with 1 part distilled water, and with a drop of Photo-Flo (optional), it soaks through the receptive layer and deep into the paper base. When it hardens, the image, receptive layer and a good portion of the paper is all bound up into a single, thick layer of Timeless - it doesn't tear, and, even if you try to delaminate it by applying duct tape and ripping it off, the delamination occurs deep in the paper base (i.e. where the layer of Timeless/image/paper fibres ends) and not in the receptive layer itself. 1 coat for an almost-matte look, 2 coats for a satin finish, 3-5 coats for high gloss (5 coats is almost mirror-like). Doesn't seem to work as well with Canson papers. Fortunately, the Breathing Color papers - at least, the Optica One and Elegance papers you've tested (which are basically Pura Smooth and Pura Velvet with OBAs) and the Entrada Natural seem to have among the best longevity of any paper with any given inkset (just comparing the test results with Ultrachrome K3). Haven't tried it with gloss papers - maybe a 1:1 or 2:1 dilution with a drop of surfactant would allow it to penetrate even glossy fibre-based and baryta papers (there's no penetrating RC papers, though). In any case, you can get any level of gloss you like with the Timeless on matte paper.
Have you done much with the Kernewek/Arista Americana fabrics? I've had the chance to see a few prints made on them, but haven't been able to print on them myself. They're not like a normal canvas - up close, you see an even mesh of fibres, not a coating of gunk that can crack and peel off. Instead, the receptive layer is soaked directly into the canvas fibres and can't delaminate, and your tests seem to indicate they have excellent lightfastness - even better than Lyve. Would like to use it, but, at the moment, I don't have a functioning printer...
-
Have you done much with the Kernewek/Arista Americana fabrics? I've had the chance to see a few prints made on them, but haven't been able to print on them myself. They're not like a normal canvas - up close, you see an even mesh of fibres, not a coating of gunk that can crack and peel off. Instead, the receptive layer is soaked directly into the canvas fibres and can't delaminate, and your tests seem to indicate they have excellent lightfastness - even better than Lyve. Would like to use it, but, at the moment, I don't have a functioning printer...
This question probably deserves another thread ;)
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
This question probably deserves another thread ;)
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Done (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=108862.0)