Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: John Hollenberg on January 13, 2017, 05:46:32 pm
-
Just ran across an update of Scott Martin's review of the Pro-4000. Scott has been unabashedly pro Canon printers for a long time, but has some decidedly negative things to say about bronzing and gloss differential with the new printers. Scroll to the bottom of the article to see the update:
http://www.on-sight.com/canon-ipf-pro-4000-review/
I don't have one of the new printers, so can't comment one way or the other.
-
Thanks for the update.
With all due respect to Scott Martin, I partially disagree.
I do not use the Pro 2000/4000 models, so I can't comment his observations about paper handling. I have vast experience with the previous generation of large format printers from Canon and I am using the Pro 1000 for two months (smaller printer but same printhead and inkset of the Pro 2000/4000 models), so I can comment about the gloss differential, bronzing and how the new inkset stands against the old in this regard.
Bronzing: True, the new inkset is more prone to bronzing IF you do not use the Gloss Optimizer. If you use it in "auto" mode (only applied where ink is laid) sometimes you still get some bronzing on light grays. I suspect the "auto" option reduces not only the coverage but also the amount of G.O. laid, which turns out to be not enough to counteract the bronzing in light grays (sometimes).
The only way to prevent this is to set the printer to use the G.O. on the whole page. That works and eliminates the bronzing, but consumes more G.O. obviously.
Gloss Differential: Again he is right when he says it is more noticeable on semi-gloss/pearl papers, but that is the case with pretty much any printer with this type of paper. I feel the G.O. is actually quite good on this regard IF used on the WHOLE PAGE. Using the G.O. on "auto" is the perfect way to exacerbate gloss differential.
-
It is what is it.
But it sounds like you'd be paying for a flood to get rid of something 'that should not be there'. Making CO (in terms of usage) the new Photo Black (typically Canon's use the Photo Black, the most)
I'd rather just have a better inkset. Remember the x000 black inks and how they were replaced (all three Ks) in the x100 printers.
I'm sure it's not nearly as bad as that, but Cannon DOES have the ability to reformulate. Especially, if the users insist on it.
-
Just ran across an update of Scott Martin's review of the Pro-4000. Scott has been unabashedly pro Canon printers for a long time, but has some decidedly negative things to say about bronzing and gloss differential with the new printers. Scroll to the bottom of the article to see the update:
http://www.on-sight.com/canon-ipf-pro-4000-review/
I don't have one of the new printers, so can't comment one way or the other.
The Pro 1000/2000/4000 share the same printhead and inkset and I have worked with the first two quite a bit. First of all, it's important to clarify that the primary purpose of the CO ink is not for gloss differential. It is to enhance colour appearance. If CO is spread across the whole image, it can have the side effect of reducing gloss differential. If it is left in "Auto" mode, it will cover the inked parts of the print, but not the uninked parts. So, if you hold the print at an artificial angle from which you would never look at a print for any other purpose than discovering the existence of gloss differential, yes, you will see some on those paper-white areas that intermingle with colour-coated areas. If you look at the print at the normal angles optimizing the colour appearance of the image, you will not see gloss differential, so for all practical purposes this is a non-issue. As well, I struggled to see bronzing on any of my output on a number of luster-type papers, but didn't. I'm not interested in arguing with Scott Martin - he's a competent guy; but I'm just reporting my own experience and I believe what my eyes are showing me. On top of which, given the kind of testing I do, I have my stuff peer reviewed by qualified observers and none of my peer reviewers have remarked on either bronzing or gloss differential. As far as I'm concerned, end of story.
-
The clearcoat inks from all of the manufacturers, whether they be called "chroma" or "gloss" "optimizers" or "enhancers", all seem to be engineered for optimal results on RC photo media, and RC media are what the marketing folks show you at trade shows. Deviate from RC media, and none of the current printer clearcoat options work as well on non RC fine art Glossy/luster type papers. They aren't laid down thick enough to do the job expected of them. As such, for those of us who print on non RC papers, the clearcoat inks offered by any printer OEM represent only a partial solution to the problems of differential gloss and bronzing. I've even gone so far as to send a print sample through a second printer pass (tricking the printer to run the clearcoat totally across the entire print surface again by sending a perfectly white (rgb = 255, 255, 255) "image" to the printer driver on the second pass. That approach can work quite well, IMHO, but involves a second pass through the printer which is not an ideal answer.
If you are of the opinion that viewing a print under glazing and when looking perfectly normal to the print surface suppresses all gloss differential, bronzing, and even surface texture features of the media you have chosen, then you probably shouldn't even care about clearcoat features nor own a printer that has a clearcoat channel, and all of this discussion gets rather academic very quickly. If, on the other hand, you anticipate that some people will observe your prints at angles other than perfectly perpendicular to the print surface, or perhaps even view "naked" prints not placed behind any glazing or laminate, then gloss differential, bronzing, and surface texture features are all factors to care about when their presence is disagreeable to you. The best clearcoat performance I've seen to date actually resides in the prosumer Epson SC P400 desktop printer model, but that gloss optimizer technology is not available on any of Epson's pro/wide format models. An equally competent clearcoat performance was achieved by HP on its venerable Z series printers, with the enduser being able to increase clearcoat thickness by customizable preset media settings such that the gloss enhancer works pretty well (but not perfectly) even on non RC fine art glossy/luster media. Canon's chroma optimizer is probably called "chroma" rather than "gloss" for a reason, because as Scott Martin noted, it comes up short as a total clearcoat strategy, particularly on non RC media.
IMHO, there's room for more improvement with printer clearcoat technology among all of the big three printer makers, and even today, if differential gloss and bronzing issues are to be totally eliminated on gloss/luster media printed on with pigmented ink printers, one still needs to resort to post processing spray coats with products like PremierArt Print Shield, Hahnemuhle Protective Spray, etc.
best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
.......... As such, for those of us who print on non RC papers, the clearcoat inks offered by any printer OEM represent only a partial solution to the problems of differential gloss and bronzing. ................
If you are of the opinion that viewing a print under glazing and when looking perfectly normal to the print surface suppresses all gloss differential, bronzing, and even surface texture features of the media you have chosen, then you probably shouldn't even care about clearcoat features nor own a printer that has a clearcoat channel, and all of this discussion gets rather academic very quickly. If, on the other hand, you anticipate that some people will observe your prints at angles other than perfectly perpendicular to the print surface, or perhaps even view "naked" prints not placed behind any glazing or laminate, then gloss differential, bronzing, and surface texture features are all factors to care about when their presence is disagreeable to you. ...............
best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
In the Canon lexicon *chroma optimizer* has a specific meaning you can look up, and it is not primarily related to gloss differential. If you are using one of these printers you DO care about the clearcoat channel because it is part of the inkset structured to enhance the overall vibrancy of the image appearance. It was engineered that way, involving a great deal of research in Canon's Kanagawa laboratories. They did rethink the inkset from the ground up.
As for how the prints are viewed, in case I wasn't clear enough and for avoidance of doubt, unless I looked at the sheet at very unnatural angles I could not see the gloss differential. As well, there are angles at which you can view the prints whereby you see the paper texture but not the gloss differential. You don't - or better I should say I don't - want to see a lot of reflective paper texture that detracts from appreciation of image detail, so I hold the paper accordingly - if I dare say so in the "nude", and in those positions I did not see gloss differential. Also for further clarity, I'm talking about various flavours of luster-type papers. If we switch the conversation to Canon Pro Platinum - a glossy paper - run through the Pro-2000 printer, I did not see gloss differential at any angle, nor any bronzing.
-
Thanks Mark. That post helped me make up my mind.
I will be purchasing an new 2000 in the next few weeks sometime.
Looking forward to giving the Canon gloss paper a go.
G
-
Still no ink permanence numbers for the Canon Pro2000 and 4000?
-
Still no ink permanence numbers for the Canon Pro2000 and 4000?
I asked recently - No, not yet. They know people are interested.
-
Thanks, Mark! It has certainly been awhile.
-
IMHO, Canon management made a calculated decision that print permanence figures for its newest ink set will hardly make or break the sales quotas on its newest line of imagePrograf 1000, 2000, and 4000 printers. Canon management probably believes photographers see "pigmented ink" in the spec sheet, and that's good enough to assure the customer on any and all print permanence issues. If only it were that simple :)
Some print samples made with the latest Canon Lucia Pro-11 ink set on a few different media are now in test at Aardenburg Imaging & Archives
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/portfolio/inks-and-media-testing-2017/
Some truly independent results with definitive answers are in the works.
kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
IMHO, Canon management made a calculated decision ................. Canon management probably believes ........................
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/portfolio/inks-and-media-testing-2017/
Some truly independent results with definitive answers are in the works.
kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Glad you phrased it so we know you know this is pure speculation, but setting that aside and turning to the scientific side of it, what matters is the results of your testing; looking forward to seeing the outcomes.
-
Glad you phrased it so we know you know this is pure speculation, but setting that aside and turning to the scientific side of it, what matters is the results of your testing; looking forward to seeing the outcomes.
That Canon management has made a calculated decision requires very little speculation on my part. Can anyone seriously regard it as a simple oversight going on nearly two years since the release of the Pro-1000 model into the marketplace? These printers aren't office printers. They are aimed at the photography and fine art printing market which is arguably the only market where print longevity matters (outdoor signage being another market for longevity concerns yet with very different expectations for durability). That said, any specific reason(s) why Canon has chosen not to offer print longevity guidance to date is indeed speculative on my part, so thank you, Mark S., for calling me to task on my unintentional overreach.
best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Mark,
The Pro-1000 became commercially available around end-November early December 2015, so it has been on the market a little over a year. I too would have hoped by now to see published longevity information, but for whatever reason it isn't - is it "calculated decision", "oversight", "chosen not to offer", technical or procedural issues delaying publication - we simply don't know, but no harm jogging their memories that people would like to see it; in any case, as I said, comforting that you will be eventually providing information on the subject when your work is completed.
-
Mark,
... as I said, comforting that you will be eventually providing information on the subject when your work is completed.
Aardenburg tests of the Canon Pro-1000 samples started in late November, 2016. It took a while to raise enough funds to independently purchase a unit, but donations from the printmaking community did make it happen. By November of 2017, there will be over 50 megalux hours of exposure accumulated on those samples, not enough to totally complete all testing, but more than enough to publish solid trend lines and compare to other systems like the older Canon Lucia inks and the latest Epson HD inks. This one year work schedule therefore represents less time to produce solid print longevity results than the time this printer model has been on the market...just sayin' ;)
best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
.............This one year work schedule therefore represents less time to produce solid print longevity results than the time this printer model has been on the market...just sayin' ;)
best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Sure, I hear what you are "just sayin' ", but I wouldn't compare the nimble, self-directed nature of a one-man enterprise versus a behemoth like Canon that has a set of (extremely cautious) corporate principles, procedures, processes and legal bumpf that need to be run through a number of departments horizontally and vertically for just about everything it does. I'm not trying to make excuses for them because, as I said, I would have liked to have seen this kind of stuff published much earlier, but I think we also need to recognize the huge differences of its modus operandi and perhaps differences of priorities, compared with folks like you and me.
-
Just a note that Scott updated his comments again and is more specific about which papers are problematic (in his opinion):
http://www.on-sight.com/canon-ipf-pro-4000-review/
-
Just a note that Scott updated his comments again and is more specific about which papers are problematic (in his opinion):
http://www.on-sight.com/canon-ipf-pro-4000-review/
I've used Canon ProLuster and Premium Fine Art Polished Rag in both the Pro-1000 and Pro-2000 (same print head and inkset) and I can't replicate those ugly results he shows. Lighting of course would make a big difference and as I said before, I prefer to look at prints under lighting that shows them correctly.
-
Scott has again updated his review with very specific information about bronzing and how to avoid it using the correct media type. See July, 2017 update at the end of his review:
http://www.on-sight.com/canon-ipf-pro-4000-review/
-
Mark, is there any information about the chemical structures of the dyes and pigments used in the various inksets? From this it may be possible to design more rapid techniques to estimate (and evaluate) longevity and various degradation processes. I couldn't really find much in the chemical literature, but I suspect manufacturers treat this as proprietary information.
IMHO, Canon management made a calculated decision that print permanence figures for its newest ink set will hardly make or break the sales quotas on its newest line of imagePrograf 1000, 2000, and 4000 printers. Canon management probably believes photographers see "pigmented ink" in the spec sheet, and that's good enough to assure the customer on any and all print permanence issues. If only it were that simple :)
Some print samples made with the latest Canon Lucia Pro-11 ink set on a few different media are now in test at Aardenburg Imaging & Archives
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/portfolio/inks-and-media-testing-2017/
Some truly independent results with definitive answers are in the works.
kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Mark, is there any information about the chemical structures of the dyes and pigments used in the various inksets? From this it may be possible to design more rapid techniques to estimate (and evaluate) longevity and various degradation processes. I couldn't really find much in the chemical literature, but I suspect manufacturers treat this as proprietary information.
not Mark but I will comment. Most of the drugs are kept trade secret. I have looked at all the Epson material safety data sheets and there is no disclosure. Nor is there any disclosure in the, patent literature. One could do an analysis of the ink using modern instruments and identify the particular compounds but that is only half the story. The encapsulation methods and the polymer make up are critical. In addition, the paper can have, a big impact.
-
... The encapsulation methods and the polymer make up are critical. In addition, the paper can have, a big impact.
A resounding +1 on both counts. In fact as the Aardenburg testing of the latest Epson HD inks has progressed to over 120 megalux hours total exposure dose the fading rate is now accelerating and reaching a rate of decline (using the i* metric to track visual appearance loss) very similar to the older K3 formulation. This non linear behavior strongly suggests that the newer HD set benefits from improved encapsulation methods and possible anti-oxidant chemistry rather than a truly different yellow pigment, i.e. a protective barrier if you will that extends the exposure "grace period" before noticeable yellow loss starts to occur. Once these protective properties start to break down, the pigment particles are then able to resume their more normal fade rates!
As for media sensitivity, the testing on the Canon Lucia Pro-11 ink set just crossed the 40 Megalux hour mark in test, not far enough along to reach the Aardenburg Conservation display rating limits yet, but far enough along to suggest that sensitivity of the red ink in particular to paper coating chemistry is going to be an issue to evaluate in greater detail, i.e., a greater number and variety of media beg to be tested :)). The new LUCIA-Pro 11 red ink appears to be more vivid but less stable than the LUCIA EX red ink used in the older iPF8300 and iPF8400 models.
best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Scott has again updated his review with very specific information about bronzing and how to avoid it using the correct media type. See July, 2017 update at the end of his review:
http://www.on-sight.com/canon-ipf-pro-4000-review/
Thanks for the info. Pro Platinum and Pro Luster are the way to go. Now the question. I want to make for the pro-1000 a new custom media. Which base media to choose for Pro Platinum or Pro Luster in MCT? There are four options:
- Lightweight Photo Paper A
- Heavyweight Photo Paper A
- Lightweight Photo Paper
- Heavyweight Photo Paper
Thanks!
-
not Mark but I will comment. Most of the drugs are kept trade secret. I have looked at all the Epson material safety data sheets and there is no disclosure. Nor is there any disclosure in the, patent literature. One could do an analysis of the ink using modern instruments and identify the particular compounds but that is only half the story. The encapsulation methods and the polymer make up are critical. In addition, the paper can have, a big impact.
Thanks Alan, that's about as far as I've gotten too. I consult from time to time for a museum near me on this matter, but they haven't pursued it for lack of funding. I'm retired now, but at one time I had access to the necessary equipment to do the job, but lacked the time. Now I have the time, but not the equipment. My interest is purely academic.
-
Thanks for the info. Pro Platinum and Pro Luster are the way to go. Now the question. I want to make for the pro-1000 a new custom media. Which base media to choose for Pro Platinum or Pro Luster in MCT? There are four options:
- Lightweight Photo Paper A
- Heavyweight Photo Paper A
- Lightweight Photo Paper
- Heavyweight Photo Paper
Thanks!
I've been trying to get an answer on that one before, but no luck. For specific Canon papers, I've gotten an explanation for the A-variants, which made sense. But for custom media types in MCT I haven't been able to pull anything out of Canon - unfortunately, and despite some efforts. Please yourself ask them also, to increase pressure on them to bring forward an explanation, and share any findings. Thanks.
See http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=116269.msg973241#msg973241.
-
I've been trying to get an answer on that one before, but no luck. For specific Canon papers, I've gotten an explanation for the A-variants, which made sense. But for custom media types in MCT I haven't been able to pull anything out of Canon - unfortunately, and despite some efforts. Please yourself ask them also, to increase pressure on them to bring forward an explanation, and share any findings. Thanks.
See http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=116269.msg973241#msg973241.
Thanks for that. I will try to contact them.
-
Thanks for that. I will try to contact them.
Did you get any info from Canon?
See http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=116269.msg996953#msg996953 for latest info.
-
Did you get any info from Canon?
See http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=116269.msg996953#msg996953 for latest info.
Hi! I called Canon Greece. The first guy told me that it was too technical and he passed me to another guy who send me his email to ask anything I wanted. I asked him and I didn't get any response. Then I went to Canon Europe website support page. I filled a form there pretending I am from Germany (to avoid passing me to the Greek guys). I asked the same questions and they send me as an answer pages 349-350 from the manual!
Then I decided by myself to pick Lightweight Paper A :). I choose that instead of Heavyweight variant in order to be able to use the rear feed which accepts smaller paper sizes because I have many paper left overs.
Thanks for the latest info!
If I find anything else I will report it here.
-
I have to concur with the conclusions abut the bronzing. On glossy and matte papers I was initially excited about the B&W performance. However, when printing on satin surfaces (both Canson Baryta Photographique as well as CANON's OWN Photo Satin paper) the bronzing is fairly pronounced. The later especially surprised me, because you would think they tested for compatibility, given both are CANON). I'm printing for an exhibition, and my standard size work is printing best on my trusty, and aging, Epson 7880, with custom profile for Canson Baryta Photographique. However, I am going larger on a few pieces. These will be unglazed, floating from the wall. This makes it more important that bronzing not be pronounced. Originally, I had planned to go with the Canson Baryta Photographique for these, but the initial dismal results with bronzing prompted me to investigate other options. I figured that a CANON satin surface would work, right? Wrong. Arguably, the bronzing is even worse than the Canson Baryta Photographique. Go figure. I've tried clear coating the whole page, etc., but no difference discerned. Fundamental ink/media incompatibility, not just with a specific brand of paper but a whole class of surface types. Wow...head scratcher. Long story short, I will have to print on a high gloss paper for these prints. They look pretty good that way.
Thanks for reading.
Best,
Christopher Jordan (Alabama)
-
I have to concur with the conclusions abut the bronzing. On glossy and matte papers I was initially excited about the B&W performance. However, when printing on satin surfaces (both Canson Baryta Photographique as well as CANON's OWN Photo Satin paper) the bronzing is fairly pronounced. The later especially surprised me, because you would think they tested for compatibility, given both are CANON). I'm printing for an exhibition, and my standard size work is printing best on my trusty, and aging, Epson 7880, with custom profile for Canson Baryta Photographique. However, I am going larger on a few pieces. These will be unglazed, floating from the wall. This makes it more important that bronzing not be pronounced. Originally, I had planned to go with the Canson Baryta Photographique for these, but the initial dismal results with bronzing prompted me to investigate other options. I figured that a CANON satin surface would work, right? Wrong. Arguably, the bronzing is even worse than the Canson Baryta Photographique. Go figure. I've tried clear coating the whole page, etc., but no difference discerned. Fundamental ink/media incompatibility, not just with a specific brand of paper but a whole class of surface types. Wow...head scratcher. Long story short, I will have to print on a high gloss paper for these prints. They look pretty good that way.
Thanks for reading.
Best,
Christopher Jordan (Alabama)
Try the Canson Baryta Prestige 340 with CO overall.
-
Thank you, Panagiotis. I found the update to Scott Martin's write-up regarding bronzing, and indeed that did the trick. I used the Canon Photo Paper Pro Luster media type with the Satin paper, and it applied the CO properly. It could use a custom profile now, but its not bad. Its strange that certain media types do not have the CO properly programmed. Canon needs to fix that. Interestingly, the CO goes awry/off in any quality setting less than "high" with Canon Photo Paper Pro Luster media type.
Thanks, and Roll Tide
Chris
-
I’m still confused. Can you print on cotton fiber satin media like Canson Platine, with no bronzing and gloss differential while keeping the white borders clean?
Having a great media cutter for canvas and the ability to load two types of media at once are great new
features as is reducing the size of the printer. Reduction in green gamut and reduction in longevity are not good.
It sounds like from the On Site review that the green gamut ( saturation ? ) issue is serious.
Anyone buying this printer for the purpose of producing canvas reproductions, like landscapes for instance, should give this careful consideration. It sounds scary.
I guess Scott is no longer interested in including HPZ printer in his comparisons. That’s too bad because his comparisons of all three brands were the only evaluations I ever trusted. It’s very hard to find someone who really has this level of experience who is an honest broker.
John
Thank you, Panagiotis. I found the update to Scott Martin's write-up regarding bronzing, and indeed that did the trick. I used the Canon Photo Paper Pro Luster media type with the Satin paper, and it applied the CO properly. It could use a custom profile now, but its not bad. Its strange that certain media types do not have the CO properly programmed. Canon needs to fix that. Interestingly, the CO goes awry/off in any quality setting less than "high" with Canon Photo Paper Pro Luster media type.
Thanks, and Roll Tide
Chris
-
Not sure why there is such hesitation about this printer. I've printed on landscape images of SW Colorado on the Canson Platine using the Prograf 4000 and the results are outstanding. I know another photographer with same printer who does the same. My personal preference is the Canson Baryta Photographique, which I use in gallery shows. I also routinely print landscapes on the Breathing Color Lyve and the green in trees and vegetation look like what one would expect.