Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: Panagiotis on October 19, 2018, 02:46:35 am
-
I found a good deal (promo package) for the PRO-4000 but I would like a little more info on ink consumption and thick-stiff media roll handling from long time users before I buy it.
I am currently using a PRO-1000 from which I am impressed from it's output quality but disappointed by it's ink consumption (my calculated ink on paper/ink wasted for cleaning ratio is 50/50).
The local dealer offering me the promo PRO-4000 reassure me that the roll models don't waste so much ink for cleaning but I have my reservations because the technology (print head/ink set) is the same between my PRO-1000 and the roll models. The promo ends at the end of the month.
Any information or advice is greatly appreciated :)
-
When I was testing the Canon Pro-2000 (same thing as the 4000 but less width), the thickest media I put through it was Canon Polished Rag and Canon Etching paper. Both are thick and moderately stiff - i.e. they do roll without being damaged. These papers went through the printer satisfactorily. Truly stiff media that doesn't bend cannot be used in the Pro line of Canon printers.
-
When I was testing the Canon Pro-2000 (same thing as the 4000 but less width), the thickest media I put through it was Canon Polished Rag and Canon Etching paper. Both are thick and moderately stiff - i.e. they do roll without being damaged. These papers went through the printer satisfactorily. Truly stiff media that doesn't bend cannot be used in the Pro line of Canon printers.
Thank you! I have read your review many times! The paper I am using a lot and interested in is Canson Baryta Prestige 340.
-
I was able to put the Canson Baryta Prestige through the Pro-1000 printer (https://luminous-landscape.com/specialty-papers-review-special-papers/), but I don't have experience using it the larger format Pro-2000/4000 models. If you are able to see one of those printers set-up at a dealer, it may be prudent to bring in some of that paper and let the staff help you try it before buying.
-
Heaviest paper I've used is LexJet TRIBUTE Satin Photo Paper 240g. Feeds fine, but occasionally has a problem when unloading. The paper is pretty stiff and I think a little slippage causes the printer to think there is a jam and shuts down.
Good tidbits on the printer here: http://www.on-sight.com/canon-ipf-pro-4000-review/
-
Our 4000 has only been on site for a few months, so I’m not a good source for the long term ink consumption question. We have run our remaining stock of the now-discontinued Breathing Color Vibrance Baryta, 17”, 24” and 44” rolls through the machine. That paper, at 345 weight, was famous for heavy curl, difficult handling, and head strikes on a range of machines. I’ll say that we’ve had no problems on the 4000 with the BC paper. I did build a Custom Paper preset for that paper with wide platen gap, and reduced drying time between head passes. A custom ICC was also made of course.
Some of this may help you. I have no regrets in choosing the 4000. For my work, the 2nd roll accessory has alone been very valuable.
John-
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I was able to put the Canson Baryta Prestige through the Pro-1000 printer (https://luminous-landscape.com/specialty-papers-review-special-papers/), but I don't have experience using it the larger format Pro-2000/4000 models. If you are able to see one of those printers set-up at a dealer, it may be prudent to bring in some of that paper and let the staff help you try it before buying.
That's a good idea since I already have 17" rolls from the paper from which I cut sheets for the pro-1000. I will ask if it is possible to try it first.
-
Heaviest paper I've used is LexJet TRIBUTE Satin Photo Paper 240g. Feeds fine, but occasionally has a problem when unloading. The paper is pretty stiff and I think a little slippage causes the printer to think there is a jam and shuts down.
Good tidbits on the printer here: http://www.on-sight.com/canon-ipf-pro-4000-review/
Thanks! I am aware of this page about the pro-4000. It was there I first read that there were some problems with stiff papers.
-
Our 4000 has only been on site for a few months, so I’m not a good source for the long term ink consumption question. We have run our remaining stock of the now-discontinued Breathing Color Vibrance Baryta, 17”, 24” and 44” rolls through the machine. That paper, at 345 weight, was famous for heavy curl, difficult handling, and head strikes on a range of machines. I’ll say that we’ve had no problems on the 4000 with the BC paper. I did build a Custom Paper preset for that paper with wide platen gap, and reduced drying time between head passes. A custom ICC was also made of course.
Some of this may help you. I have no regrets in choosing the 4000. For my work, the 2nd roll accessory has alone been very valuable.
John-
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
From your description the Breathing Color Baryta is similar (handling wise) with the Canson Baryta Prestige (stiff, curl, head strikes etc). Very helpful to know that there is no problems with the 4000. Thanks!
-
Any photo base paper should feed through the Pro-4000 easily. You can feed up to canvas (thickness) with no issues. As per Mark, anything that's not too thick (or stiff like) in the posterboard area will be fine.
If a Satin paper has issues unfeeding, there seems to be something wrong with the roller (where the roll holder moves the roll itself) not grabbing it easily. We've rarely had any issues unfeeding photo paper rolls with our demo.
With heavier media (fine art), just make sure to select an equivalent media type on the printer so it will adjust itself when feeding it and printing. Since there are no direct media types for 3rd party products, a similar Canon version should suffice; unless you rather create it from the Media Configuration Tool for that media itself (like John did).
John- glad you like using your printer!
Panagiotis - feel free to contact us with any questions about these printers!
IT Supplies
-
Any photo base paper should feed through the Pro-4000 easily. You can feed up to canvas (thickness) with no issues. As per Mark, anything that's not too thick (or stiff like) in the posterboard area will be fine.
If a Satin paper has issues unfeeding, there seems to be something wrong with the roller (where the roll holder moves the roll itself) not grabbing it easily. We've rarely had any issues unfeeding photo paper rolls with our demo.
With heavier media (fine art), just make sure to select an equivalent media type on the printer so it will adjust itself when feeding it and printing. Since there are no direct media types for 3rd party products, a similar Canon version should suffice; unless you rather create it from the Media Configuration Tool for that media itself (like John did).
John- glad you like using your printer!
Panagiotis - feel free to contact us with any questions about these printers!
IT Supplies
Thank you! Your reply along the other replies above answer my concerns about the thick media handling. Check!
Now the remaining issue is the ink consumption. I know that for many markets ink consumption is not a number one determining factor for buying a printer but here the economy is not good and the profit margins are very compressed. Is it possible to share the ink consumption figures from your demo machine? Also how often do you change the MC-30 maintenance tank (if you know and how much it weights when it is full and ready to be replaced it would be great!).
Thanks.
-
I ahve had the Pro-4000 for a year now. I use Breathing Color products mostly rolls of Canvas's Chromata White and Silverada and papers Luster and Metallic with no issues. I have also ran their sample papers with no issue which had their heavier art papers though rolls may differ from a flat paper.
I work away from home roughly 7-9 months of the year. I got the printer October last year and printed something at least once a week till I headed off to work in February. I returned end of August, fired up the printer, ran nozzle check, head alignment and a color calibration all good. Not to say that is normal or I will have the same experience this next go. I got the canon knowing I may clog a print head and can replace it. The printer was left plugged in but never touched while gone.
Ink use I am still on the inks shipped with the printer. Was listed as coming with 330ml tanks mine came with 190ml so I wrote inquiring and was sent a set of 160ml tanks for 350ml total. I have installed most of the second set now. Not that this tells you much as I didn't keep track of number of prints, size or anything else. I did do a number of 24"x48" prints etc. I have ran 40 feet of 36 inch wide Chromata white canvas before replacing any tanks among unknown feet of other media.
I am still on the same MC-30 tank and is showing just under 50% full.
Searched but appears I didn't do a purchase first use experience post here but did here if interested, https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4220352#forum-post-60340867
-
I ahve had the Pro-4000 for a year now. I use Breathing Color products mostly rolls of Canvas's Chromata White and Silverada and papers Luster and Metallic with no issues. I have also ran their sample papers with no issue which had their heavier art papers though rolls may differ from a flat paper.
I work away from home roughly 7-9 months of the year. I got the printer October last year and printed something at least once a week till I headed off to work in February. I returned end of August, fired up the printer, ran nozzle check, head alignment and a color calibration all good. Not to say that is normal or I will have the same experience this next go. I got the canon knowing I may clog a print head and can replace it. The printer was left plugged in but never touched while gone.
Ink use I am still on the inks shipped with the printer. Was listed as coming with 330ml tanks mine came with 190ml so I wrote inquiring and was sent a set of 160ml tanks for 350ml total. I have installed most of the second set now. Not that this tells you much as I didn't keep track of number of prints, size or anything else. I did do a number of 24"x48" prints etc. I have ran 40 feet of 36 inch wide Chromata white canvas before replacing any tanks among unknown feet of other media.
I am still on the same MC-30 tank and is showing just under 50% full.
Searched but appears I didn't do a purchase first use experience post here but did here if interested, https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4220352#forum-post-60340867
It's nice to know the printer worked with no issues after a very long idle time. I have also read your dpreview post. Thanks!
-
I have a Pro 4000 and a Pro 6000, they are good.
I noticed that in 6000 the paper input has improved, when will put the roll.
Maybe because the 6000 is newer and have corrected some problem with paper upload.
I never stayed 3 weeks without printing, even in 3 weeks stops, come back to work without any problem.
These printers are extremely economical, even printing in Highest mode, which is the way I print.
I used Canvas up to 395g without any problem.
Hope this helps.
-
I have a Pro 4000 and a Pro 6000, they are good.
I noticed that in 6000 the paper input has improved, when will put the roll.
Maybe because the 6000 is newer and have corrected some problem with paper upload.
I never stayed 3 weeks without printing, even in 3 weeks stops, come back to work without any problem.
These printers are extremely economical, even printing in Highest mode, which is the way I print.
I used Canvas up to 395g without any problem.
Hope this helps.
It helps a lot. Thanks!
-
Since Canon updated their models from the ground up, they've kept certain features like ink usage being low but still providing great quality upfront (even when using standard printing vs high quality will look the same).
I've heard many of my customers say that they haven't used their printer for a few weeks or so and came back and it booted up with no issues. That's the nice part of the Canon printers is they "should" work easily from being idle for so long and ink consumption is fairly minimum from what I've seen through most of my prints on our demo unit. I usually do standard quality since it's comparable to the high quality look, and you don't see much difference on them. But, it also depends on the media you're printing on.
The Accounting Tool will provide the ink usage per print, which can help if you weren't sure what to charge a customer (and make some profit) or just to see how much ink (or color) was applied to the media on a certain setting.
The Pro 6000 was the newest version of the series since the Pro 6000S was shipping upon the other sizes at the time. Since many users were wanting a quicker speed on the large end, that's why the stuck with the S version (8 colors). Than others were asking about when Canon would be coming out with the 12 cartridge version and then Canon made it about a year after launch per all the requests.
I personally like to recommend Canon for many reasons, but not saying it's the best out of the 3 manufacturers. Each printer has their goods and bads, so it's based on what the user would be doing and if they are looking for certain features.
The roll feeder is basically automatic now and this feature helps with the media not being touched as much when being feed through the system (hence finger print marks and what not).
-
...............
The Accounting Tool will provide the ink usage per print, which can help if you weren't sure what to charge a customer (and make some profit) or just to see how much ink (or color) was applied to the media on a certain setting.
..................
No-one in the business should depend on this tool for a commercially usable estimate of ink consumption. It is only useful for accounting ink laid on paper, which is fine as far it goes, but it doesn't go far enough. Apart from the CO, it does not account for ink used on maintenance, and we have seen reports that it can be substantial.
-
The Accounting Tool will provide the ink usage per print, which can help if you weren't sure what to charge a customer (and make some profit) or just to see how much ink (or color) was applied to the media on a certain setting.
The Accounting manager reports only ink on paper (and this with a +- 15% accuracy as Canon states). It's doesn't account for the ink going in the maintenance tank. If the later is a considerable amount it must be calculated as a cost. That is why I asked if you could provide information about the usage of MC-30 and/or it's weight full.
-
The Accounting manager reports only ink on paper (and this with a +- 15% accuracy as Canon states). It's doesn't account for the ink going in the maintenance tank. If the later is a considerable amount it must be calculated as a cost. That is why I asked if you could provide information about the usage of MC-30 and/or it's weight full.
PRO-4000(2000, 6000) has nothing to do with PRO-1000. I'm using PRO-4000 since the day it became available and the amount of ink consumed for maintenance is negligible (contrary to PRO-1000). Considering the weight of full maintenance cart, PRO-4000 uses max. 10% of amount of ink (used for printing) for maintenance and head replacement.
-
Considering the weight of full maintenance cart, PRO-1000 uses max. 10% of amount of ink (used for printing) for maintenance and head replacement.
I assume that in the sentence above you mean PRO-4000 instead of PRO-1000.
Anyway that's good news about PRO roll models ink consumption.
Thanks!
-
I assume that in the sentence above you mean PRO-4000 instead of PRO-1000.
Anyway that's good news about PRO roll models ink consumption.
Thanks!
Yes, I meant PRO-4000 as well as all roll PRO models - sorry for typo.
Despite some teething troubles I'm very happy with my PRO-4000 and highly recommend it. It offers combination of outstanding quality, low running cost, high printing speed and ease of use.
-
Yes, I meant PRO-4000 as well as all roll PRO models - sorry for typo.
Despite some teething troubles I'm very happy with my PRO-4000 and highly recommend it. It offers combination of outstanding quality, low running cost, high printing speed and ease of use.
There's no question about the print quality from the Pro-1000/2000/4000 line of printers - they're really fine printers in respect of print quality. Also I'm glad to hear of your experience with maintenance ink on the larger models - I was unable to test that personally, other than for the 1000 which, as you say, seems to be different.
None of the manufacturers are prepared to espouse any kind of transparency on how and how much ink is used for maintenance, which is unfortunate. I'm often tempted to think that if automobile manufacturers can publish gasoline consumption under a specified and standardized set of conditions, it should be possible for the printing industry to do likewise for printers, but maybe it's just technically too different for this comparison to be valid, I don't know. As well, it isn't clear to me that maintenance ink should be a decisive variable in making a printer choice - I think there are a number of other factors that at least from my perspective would rank higher, recognizing that priorities would be different for different kinds of users and usage.
-
I think there are a number of other factors that at least from my perspective would rank higher, recognizing that priorities would be different for different kinds of users and usage.
Here currently cost is ranking very high as a factor. The margins are very compressed.
Anyway I ordered the printer today :) and I want to thank you and all the others who participated in this thread for your help! Thank you!
-
Here currently cost is ranking very high as a factor. The margins are very compressed.
Anyway I ordered the printer today :) and I want to thank you and all the others who participated in this thread for your help! Thank you!
Congratulations! Remember to update FW to newest 2.07 immediately!
-
Congratulations! Remember to update FW to newest 2.07 immediately!
I will do! Thank you! Any more info about why it is so urgent?
-
I will do! Thank you! Any more info about why it is so urgent?
It will take better care of print head ;)
-
It will take better care of print head ;)
Good to know. Thanks!
-
Baryta Prestige goes through the Pro-2000 (just like a 4000, but narrower) just fine - it is one of my favorite papers to use on mine. I also concur that it doesn't much care about being switched off for quite a while (months) - it may gurgle away for 15-20 minutes when coming back on from an extended sleep, but it prints right away, without so much as a manual nozzle check. If you do blow a head, it's a $500 5 minute replacement, unlike the Epsons where a head replacement is $1500 including the service call.
You can't run things that won't roll at all through the Pro series since the paper paths all have a ~180 degree turn. By contrast, the Epsons will print on anything including inflexible sheets of plastic or metal (the limit is 1.5mm thick, but it doesn't have to be flexible at all). I have a roll of silk on a backing paper that I'm trying to decide whether I trust on the Pro-2000 (I'm a little worried that the curve might cause it to detach from the backing). Interestingly, Canon claims to handle heavier roll media than Epson (Canon up to 0.8mm, Epson only up to 0.5mm). Looking at the paper paths, that's not intuitive - the Epsons have very little curve other than the roll itself - the paper feeds down from the top, passes the head a few degrees off vertical and comes out the bottom - essentially a straight, nearly vertical path (the cut sheet feed is truly straight, while the roll feed has a slight curve coming off the roll). The Canon feeds in the bottom front, makes a u-turn, passes the head horizontally and feeds out above where it came in.
The Epson paper path is clearly better, but it also leads to Epson's tricky pressurized ink system. Canon has a much simpler ink path with many fewer clogs in return for a slightly convoluted paper path. HP and the older 24" Canons got to a nearly straight, mostly horizontal paper path without putting the head at an odd angle that requires the tricky pressurized ink system, but that means the roll holder is behind the printer (the Canons put the roll holder at the top rear, accepting a slight curve, while the HP path is straighter, but the roll is more directly behind the printer). Hardly the best place to load paper... All three have advantages and disadvantages.
-
Baryta Prestige goes through the Pro-2000 (just like a 4000, but narrower) just fine - it is one of my favorite papers to use on mine.
Thank you! I print a lot of Baryta Prestige on the PRO-1000 and I am waiting to try the rolls on the my new 4000 (which is still in its box since it came one month ago due to preparations of my new studio).
I also concur that it doesn't much care about being switched off for quite a while (months) - it may gurgle away for 15-20 minutes when coming back on from an extended sleep, but it prints right away, without so much as a manual nozzle check. If you do blow a head, it's a $500 5 minute replacement, unlike the Epsons where a head replacement is $1500 including the service call.
Probably it went through a big cleaning cycle. I already have a PF-10 head which I bought when I thought that the PRO-1000 was close to need a replacement. I was wrong. Now it will serve as a back up head for both.
You can't run things that won't roll at all through the Pro series since the paper paths all have a ~180 degree turn. By contrast, the Epsons will print on anything including inflexible sheets of plastic or metal (the limit is 1.5mm thick, but it doesn't have to be flexible at all). I have a roll of silk on a backing paper that I'm trying to decide whether I trust on the Pro-2000 (I'm a little worried that the curve might cause it to detach from the backing). Interestingly, Canon claims to handle heavier roll media than Epson (Canon up to 0.8mm, Epson only up to 0.5mm). Looking at the paper paths, that's not intuitive - the Epsons have very little curve other than the roll itself - the paper feeds down from the top, passes the head a few degrees off vertical and comes out the bottom - essentially a straight, nearly vertical path (the cut sheet feed is truly straight, while the roll feed has a slight curve coming off the roll). The Canon feeds in the bottom front, makes a u-turn, passes the head horizontally and feeds out above where it came in.
The Epson paper path is clearly better, but it also leads to Epson's tricky pressurized ink system. Canon has a much simpler ink path with many fewer clogs in return for a slightly convoluted paper path. HP and the older 24" Canons got to a nearly straight, mostly horizontal paper path without putting the head at an odd angle that requires the tricky pressurized ink system, but that means the roll holder is behind the printer (the Canons put the roll holder at the top rear, accepting a slight curve, while the HP path is straighter, but the roll is more directly behind the printer). Hardly the best place to load paper... All three have advantages and disadvantages.
I understand that the roll paper path on the 4000 takes two 90 degree turns to reach the platen but since both turns are in the side of the curl of the roll why is this consider a drawback?
-
It's a common misunderstanding that Epson's straight paper path is better for roll media. Canon's design is indeed clearly better as it follows the natural curl of the paper. Epson's straight path actually poses a greater risk with the leading edge curl of the roll paper. So you occasionally hear the advice from Epson users to advance the roll slightly before printing. Not so on Canon.
-
It's a common misunderstanding that Epson's straight paper path is better for roll media. Canon's design is indeed clearly better as it follows the natural curl of the paper. Epson's straight path actually poses a greater risk with the leading edge curl of the roll paper. So you occasionally hear the advice from Epson users to advance the roll slightly before printing. Not so on Canon.
Epson leaves marks on the beginning of the paper, that's why you need to advance crumpled paper or rewind it after printing.
Paradoxically Canon can handle thicker/heavier media than Epson - as long as they're elastic enough to be bended.
-
Interesting... The Canon curve actually may help roll media? I wonder if the Canon prints are more likely to need derolling when they come out? I've never had both brands at the same time, so I haven't had the opportunity to compare print curl coming off the printer.
In any case, I'll take the simpler ink system any day - not having to worry about always printing every week is huge... Canon is so much less maintenance intensive that the maintenance difference almost certainly overrides the ability to feed stiff sheets for all but the most frequently printing individual photographers (maybe not so for businesses that print every day)...
-
It's a common misunderstanding that Epson's straight paper path is better for roll media. Canon's design is indeed clearly better as it follows the natural curl of the paper. Epson's straight path actually poses a greater risk with the leading edge curl of the roll paper. So you occasionally hear the advice from Epson users to advance the roll slightly before printing. Not so on Canon.
There are some claims that some paper feeds “reverse” curl the paper in the process of feeding it and that’s bad for the paper. I guess if one buys into that then the epson straight path avoids that. De-curling it is said can introduce micro cracks into delicate coatings on some paper. Personally I don’t think there is any real evidence out there to support it.
The main discussion point I’ve heard about the straight paper path is it allows much thicker media to be used in the printer, such as poster boards or even aluminum sheets, and it’s also great for printing on delicate sheet paper. Obviously not something that everyone needs.
As far as it being a disadvantage for roll paper, I know several users who print on baryta and similar papers on Epson with no problems. I print on legacy baryta all the time and don’t see the scratch marks mentioned. Maybe if I was trying to print borderless on such medias, but I don’t see much borderless printing attempted on the delicate medias like baryta papers.
-
If personal anecdotes are permitted, I’ll share that I’ve just finished a pretty large job of about 80 prints, in varying sizes. It was really quite amazing to load roll after roll, 50 feet in length, and collect those prints hours later from the 2nd take up roll, neatly spooled, without touching the printer in the interim. The total print length was about 130’. While two 50’ rolls were Legacy Baryta, I also finished my remaining inventory of the famously thick and difficult now-discontinued Vibrance Baryta from BC. I realize this is one user’s experience, but after years of generating prints flawed by head clogs and kinks, devoting time to cleaning cycles over which I preside quite attentively, and other lost-time rituals, I’ll confess gratitude for our Pro 4000.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
You probaby meant they were neatly "spooled"! (Amazing what one letter can do, huh?)
-
You probaby meant they were neatly "spooled"! (Amazing what one letter can do, huh?)
Right, Mark.
-
Interesting... The Canon curve actually may help roll media?
More like it doesn't cause as much resistance to the natural curl of roll media.
I wonder if the Canon prints are more likely to need derolling when they come out?
It makes no difference in the real world. Curly paper comes out just as curly from Epson/Canon/HP printers. The relatively short time it spends in the paper path during printing is immaterial.
-
The main discussion point I’ve heard about the straight paper path is it allows much thicker media to be used in the printer, such as poster boards or even aluminum sheets, and it’s also great for printing on delicate sheet paper. Obviously not something that everyone needs.
Actually, not quite. The new Canons are specced to auto feed thicker roll media than new Epsons (0.8 vs 0.5mm). The Epson straight paper path is better for rigid material that doesn't have a curl or bend. For manual loading of rigid media through the straight paper path, Epsons can take even thicker media, up to 1.5mm. The roll vs sheet/board media difference needs to be properly stated.
There are some claims that some paper feeds “reverse” curl the paper in the process of feeding it and that’s bad for the paper. I guess if one buys into that then the epson straight path avoids that. De-curling it is said can introduce micro cracks into delicate coatings on some paper. Personally I don’t think there is any real evidence out there to support it.
As far as it being a disadvantage for roll paper, I know several users who print on baryta and similar papers on Epson with no problems. I print on legacy baryta all the time and don’t see the scratch marks mentioned. Maybe if I was trying to print borderless on such medias, but I don’t see much borderless printing attempted on the delicate medias like baryta papers.
The best paper path shape puts the least mechanical stress on the paper. None of the newer Canons or Epsons bend the paper enough to actually decurl it, that would require a paper path curving in the opposite direction, not even a straight paper path could do that.
You can raise the platten gap or head height so that the carriage does not smash into the leading edge curl, but then you will get uneven graininess as the spray would be nearer to the paper for some regions and further away for others. I can see this without a loupe, though I don't expect regular folks to ever notice. This problem also persists for sheet media which develop waves or curls at the edges.
-
Actually, not quite. The new Canons are specced to auto feed thicker roll media than new Epsons (0.8 vs 0.5mm). The Epson straight paper path is better for rigid material that doesn't have a curl or bend. For manual loading of rigid media through the straight paper path, Epsons can take even thicker media, up to 1.5mm. The roll vs sheet/board media difference needs to be properly stated.
I could have been clearer, basically that’s why I added the two examples ... certainly examples of rigid material. Agreed it doesn’t apply to any roll papers.
-
Thanks for accepting the revised language so graciously. :) I just wanted to make sure not to perpetuate further misunderstanding.
-
If personal anecdotes are permitted, I’ll share that I’ve just finished a pretty large job of about 80 prints, in varying sizes. It was really quite amazing to load roll after roll, 50 feet in length, and collect those prints hours later from the 2nd take up roll, neatly spooled, without touching the printer in the interim. The total print length was about 130’. While two 50’ rolls were Legacy Baryta, I also finished my remaining inventory of the famously thick and difficult now-discontinued Vibrance Baryta from BC. I realize this is one user’s experience, but after years of generating prints flawed by head clogs and kinks, devoting time to cleaning cycles over which I preside quite attentively, and other lost-time rituals, I’ll confess gratitude for our Pro 4000.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thanks for sharing this. I was reading the manual and I was wondering about a similar use of the PRO-4000. Print the entire roll without cutting the pages and let the second roll holder to take up the printed paper in reverse mode (the printed surface inside) and then let the printed roll stay for some time to remove the curl and then cut it on the cutting mat one by one. Do you believe that it is possible?
-
Thanks for sharing this. I was reading the manual and I was wondering about a similar use of the PRO-4000. Print the entire roll without cutting the pages and let the second roll holder to take up the printed paper in reverse mode (the printed surface inside) and then let the printed roll stay for some time to remove the curl and then cut it on the cutting mat one by one. Do you believe that it is possible?
Yes, the 2nd roll can wind prints in the Forward or Reverse direction, as you say. What's needed to undo paper factory curl will depend on the paper, the radius of winding on the 2nd roll, and other factors like duration. But sure, you'd undoubtedly get some relaxation paper curl winding that way. The 2nd roll can also act a second paper supply, as you may know.
When I make these 50' long prints, I deliver the roll to the company who cuts, mounts and laminates the prints for me. Where I the guy doing the cutting, I'd likely be more attentive to the curl issue. Either way and I've shared above, it's something of a new experience to be hover-free with the Pro 4000 machine.
John-
John Caldwell
-
Yes, the 2nd roll can wind prints in the Forward or Reverse direction, as you say. What's needed to undo paper factory curl will depend on the paper, the radius of winding on the 2nd roll, and other factors like duration. But sure, you'd undoubtedly get some relaxation paper curl winding that way. The 2nd roll can also act a second paper supply, as you may know.
When I make these 50' long prints, I deliver the roll to the company who cuts, mounts and laminates the prints for me. Where I the guy doing the cutting, I'd likely be more attentive to the curl issue. Either way and I've shared above, it's something of a new experience to be hover-free with the Pro 4000 machine.
John-
John Caldwell
I will try it. Thanks!
-
Canons have long been great at hover-free printing. Unless you need some feature offered only by Epson (you print on rigid media, for example), I prefer Canon for the way most individual photographers use a printer. The gamut differences are minuscule in the latest versions (Canon's a little better in saturated blues and violets, Epson in saturated oranges and greens - corresponding to where they have extra inks).
The real difference is that Canons are very easy to maintain - really no different from a desktop printer except that cartridges run out less frequently but cost more when they do, but will occasionally (several years the way photographers tend to use printers) chew up a $500 print head.
Epsons require much more care and feeding, but the head is permanent, and can last several times as long as a Canon head if you take care of it. Print shops often prefer Epson because they can get many more prints out of an Epson head with constant use, but you'll kill the head by not printing. When the head goes on an Epson, it kills the printer (if it's a 24" or an older 44"printer) or requires a $1500 service call (if it's a newer 44" or any 60" printer). You can get service to replace heads on 24" or older 44" printers, but it's not worth it, because when you subtract the value of the ink that comes with a new printer, the head is more expensive than the printer's worth. In intermittent use (typical for an individual photographer), a Canon head will actually outlast an Epson head.
-
Canons have long been great at hover-free printing. Unless you need some feature offered only by Epson (you print on rigid media, for example), I prefer Canon for the way most individual photographers use a printer. The gamut differences are minuscule in the latest versions (Canon's a little better in saturated blues and violets, Epson in saturated oranges and greens - corresponding to where they have extra inks).
The real difference is that Canons are very easy to maintain - really no different from a desktop printer except that cartridges run out less frequently but cost more when they do, but will occasionally (several years the way photographers tend to use printers) chew up a $500 print head.
Epsons require much more care and feeding, but the head is permanent, and can last several times as long as a Canon head if you take care of it. Print shops often prefer Epson because they can get many more prints out of an Epson head with constant use, but you'll kill the head by not printing. When the head goes on an Epson, it kills the printer (if it's a 24" or an older 44"printer) or requires a $1500 service call (if it's a newer 44" or any 60" printer). You can get service to replace heads on 24" or older 44" printers, but it's not worth it, because when you subtract the value of the ink that comes with a new printer, the head is more expensive than the printer's worth. In intermittent use (typical for an individual photographer), a Canon head will actually outlast an Epson head.
I'm attaching a screen grab showing the 2D views and gamut volume data for Ilford Gold Fibre Silk (a paper capable of very wide gamut) using my profile for a Canon Pro-2000 (much wider gamut than Ilford's profile) and Ilford's profile for Epson SC-P7000. It is self explanatory.
Could you please cite supporting data for the proposition in your last sentence quoted above. So much depends on the character of the intermittent usage and the varying operating conditions in a wide universe of users that I find it hard to evaluate this statement without broadly based supportive data.
-
I'm attaching a screen grab showing the 2D views and gamut volume data for Ilford Gold Fibre Silk (a paper capable of very wide gamut) using my profile for a Canon Pro-2000 (much wider gamut than Ilford's profile) and Ilford's profile for Epson SC-P7000. It is self explanatory.
It's in L*a*b, so it's misleading. Real life visual difference for max. saturated greens and oranges are approx. 3-4x smaller than the graph suggests. It also doesn't show the effect of Canon's Chroma Optimizer, which makes saturated colors perceptually more vivid.
-
It's in L*a*b, so it's misleading. Real life visual difference for max. saturated greens and oranges are approx. 3-4x smaller than the graph suggests. It also doesn't show the effect of Canon's Chroma Optimizer, which makes saturated colors perceptually more vivid.
It's not misleading if one knows how to interpret it, and it's not meant to, nor can it, convey an exact translation from a pair of lines on a graph to what you see comparatively on paper. In any case, I have done real life visual comparisons between relevant Epson and Canon models for the purpose of detecting such differences on paper, so I've seen on paper the effect of chroma optimizer as well. The truth is that apparent visual differences depend very much on the nature of the photo one is examining. If you have photos that really exploit the gamut difference in the hue regions where the gap shows in the CTP diagram, you can see a subtle difference of saturation in the colour reproduction on paper. For photos that don't stretch the limits of gamut in those regions, the differences between the printers are small enough to be ignored for most intents and purposes.
-
It's not misleading if one knows how to interpret it, and it's not meant to, nor can it, convey an exact translation from a pair of lines on a graph to what you see comparatively on paper. In any case, I have done real life visual comparisons between relevant Epson and Canon models for the purpose of detecting such differences on paper, so I've seen on paper the effect of chroma optimizer as well. The truth is that apparent visual differences depend very much on the nature of the photo one is examining. If you have photos that really exploit the gamut difference in the hue regions where the gap shows in the CTP diagram, you can see a subtle difference of saturation in the colour reproduction on paper. For photos that don't stretch the limits of gamut in those regions, the differences between the printers are small enough to be ignored for most intents and purposes.
Exactly - for someone that doesn't know limitations of L*a*b color space gamut difference shown on the diagram may seem significant, while there is only a difference that's "suble or small enough to be ignored". And BTW it's a shame that ColorThink doesn't draw charts in ∆E2000 which is more perceptually uniform.
-
Exactly what I've been saying... Epson has a small gamut advantage in saturated greens and oranges, Canon has a small gamut advantage in saturated blues and violets. Unless you're pushing the gamut really hard in one of those areas (easier to do with graphic arts files that use a lot of highly saturated colors than with photography), it's small enough to mostly ignore. I haven't seen gamuts on the new HP Z series yet...
If you aren't pushing the gamut hard in one of the regions where someone has an advantage, choose based on other factors. If you need to print on rigid substrates, Epson is your only choice - Canon has no straight paper paths (does HP?). If you are an individual photographer who doesn't print at least once a week, probably choose Canon (or HP) and spare yourself the clogs. If you're a print shop with huge volumes, you might want to choose Epson (or at least consider Canon's heads as part of the consumables costs). If you object to HP's rear loading that is best reached from behind the printer, choose either Epson (spindle-free top loader that is the easiest of the three) or Canon (a front loader that isn't far behind).
I don't have survey data on head longevity, but I know that the Canons I have owned don't chew through heads especially fast (every 3-5 years - I had an iPF 6100 that served me for three years, then went to a friend for another seven - it only ever got one pair of new heads , around year 5). I've lost two Epsons no older than that to clogs (in 15 years of printing).
I've had three of each brand in 15 years, including my current Pro-2000. My Pro-2000 is relatively new (1 year) and going strong - I would certainly NOT expect to have needed a head by now (been through 10 rolls of paper or so), and I haven't - no issues at all. I print about 50 feet a month, largely Platine, but it's not consistent - I'll go through 200 feet in a month (often in winter, when I'm in the field less), then make very few prints for a while. My prior printer was an Epson Stylus Pro 7900, which I lost to a clog in Year 4 (someone is using it for piezography now, but a channel is permanently gone).
Before that, I had a 3880 at a time when I had no room for a big printer, and it was a piece of junk (three significant repairs in two years, related to clogging) - I know other people have had much better luck with those. Its predecessor was the iPF-6100 that just retired at the age of ten from a friend's studio (due to drivers - it would still be going if his Mac could have run it)...Before that, I had an iPF-5000 (a quirky machine, but it served me well for three years, then another friend for another three or four). It was quirky enough that it wasn't worth putting heads in when it demanded them in year six or seven. My adventure in large-format printing began with an Epson Stylus Pro 4000. That machine lasted quite a while, eventually dying of clogs, but on its third owner and sixth or seventh year - it had a long life. It clogged if you looked at it funny, but it was relatively easy to bring back when it did.
The score:
Canon: 1 going strong just past year 1, 1 10 years!, 1 7 years
Epson: 1 2 years, 1 4 years (not counting its second life in piezography, because it has a permanently blown channel), 1 7 years.
The only Epson I've had that I was fully happy with the lifespan of was that original Stylus Pro 4000 - and I spent a lot of time talking it out of clogs... I may well have gotten a lemon 3880, though.
Both of my Canons whose lifespans are known have been excellent, and I hope the Pro-2000 is like its predecessors.
The Pro-2000 is enough cheaper to throw heads in, because it no longer takes two, that it is almost certainly worth re-heading when the head goes. I'm hoping it goes ten years like my 6100 did, and it'll be interesting to see if it goes through one or two head replacements in that time... I'm certainly not expecting ten years on one head - but I'd like to get five if I can.
-
Before that, I had a 3880 at a time when I had no room for a big printer, and it was a piece of junk (three significant repairs in two years, related to clogging) - I know other people have had much better luck with those. The only Epson I've had that I was fully happy with the lifespan of was that original Stylus Pro 4000 - and I spent a lot of time talking it out of clogs... I may well have gotten a lemon 3880, though.
I have a 4880 which I believe is of the same generation as your 3880. It sat powered off for quite a few years (the expiration dates on the ink cartridges were in 2012!) while my interests were in other areas. After I got back into printing earlier this year (purchasing a P10K) I decided I'd see if I could get the 4880 working, mostly "for the heck of it". I released the head, puddled the capping station with some mystery cleaner I had laying around from my 9000/9500 days and let it sit overnight. The next day I powered it on and did some nozzle checks. Much to my surprise, it managed to get most of the head unclogged by the end of the first page (it re-does the patches until it gets a clean one or gives up). I managed to get a 100% good nozzle check by the end of the day. It's useful when I want to print sheets, since I don't want to sit and feed the sheets one at a time into the P10K. It is loaded with photo black which meets most of my needs. I don't want to risk switching to matte black, since that is one of the things that frequently fail if not exercised regularly.
Aside from some Epson models which seem to be [in]famously unreliable, with the others it seems to be "luck of the draw" - some units are trouble-free, and others of the same model should have gone directly from the shipping box to the dumpster.