Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6   Go Down

Author Topic: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review  (Read 56139 times)

keithcooper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 417
    • Northlight Images
Re: Page length latest - UK :-(
« Reply #80 on: May 29, 2016, 11:43:06 am »

If you are talking about the Pro-1000, I know first-hand that the senior technical staff in charge of this printer at Canon Inc (Japan) are thoroughly familiar with this issue, they know the importance of it, they are addressing it and we are reliably informed they will be adding several inches to the maximum sheet length. That is why we published the update notice of May 22nd in my review of the Pro-1000.
Yes, the PRO-1000.  I've been asked by quite a few people about this and unfortunately this side of the pond, there is no comment or further info on the update you mention.

Given the performance of the paper handling of the PRO-1000 with A2 media there is no good reason not to take the max. page length up by at least another 6 in.
25.5 inch seems -to my mind- a pretty half hearted change (welcome to be sure, but still useless for rather too many potential users)
Logged

keithcooper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 417
    • Northlight Images
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #81 on: May 29, 2016, 11:58:59 am »

I don't think matte paper is a particularly suitable media from which to appreciate the difference, because much of the BPC benefit is seen most obviously in the deep shadow range below the capability of matte papers to properly represent. I suspect this is the reason why the difference between the two versions in your image here is - while noticeable - rather subtle.
I'm inclined to disagree here - I see the effects of a lack of BPC somewhat more clearly, on Canon printers that I've tested, with matte papers and the profiles (i1Profiler) that I've built.

I picked the example shown specifically to show that it was a relatively subtle change for many images, but one that once you noticed it, jumped out at you.

I note too that Canon specifically say that you don't need BPC with their profiles.

My biggest complaint would be that they are still saying you need to install the Adobe CMM, when it works on no current systems Mac or PC. (I can't find any updated Adobe CMM info after 2009 - does anyone else know if this is the current state of things?)

This is an ongoing problem with Canon print plugins for quite some time - I like the PS printing plugin for my iPF8300, but BPC support vanished a while ago.

If I'm printing with it now and want BPC, I convert to my printer profile before calling the print plugin, and then print with no colour management
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Page length latest - UK :-(
« Reply #82 on: May 29, 2016, 12:04:45 pm »

Yes, the PRO-1000.  I've been asked by quite a few people about this and unfortunately this side of the pond, there is no comment or further info on the update you mention.

Given the performance of the paper handling of the PRO-1000 with A2 media there is no good reason not to take the max. page length up by at least another 6 in.
25.5 inch seems -to my mind- a pretty half hearted change (welcome to be sure, but still useless for rather too many potential users)

Neither your side of the pond or mine are determinative in this matter - it is Canon Inc. in Japan. That's where the technical decisions are made. Of course they cull advice and insight from all their branch operations.

Frankly, between the four walls of the internet, I would have preferred to see the total elimination of a length limitation from the printer - let it print for whatever length the printing application allows. Their response of 25.5 inches at least allows to fill the page with a FF aspect ratio without cropping and without wasting paper - that was the thinking, and it does achieve that objective, so it will address that range of complaints about it. I don't know what technical issues they would encounter eliminating the length limitation, but I do know they understand what some other printers offer and what the market is telling them.

Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #83 on: May 29, 2016, 12:07:36 pm »

I'm inclined to disagree here - I see the effects of a lack of BPC somewhat more clearly, on Canon printers that I've tested, with matte papers and the profiles (i1Profiler) that I've built.

I picked the example shown specifically to show that it was a relatively subtle change for many images, but one that once you noticed it, jumped out at you.

I note too that Canon specifically say that you don't need BPC with their profiles.

My biggest complaint would be that they are still saying you need to install the Adobe CMM, when it works on no current systems Mac or PC. (I can't find any updated Adobe CMM info after 2009 - does anyone else know if this is the current state of things?)

This is an ongoing problem with Canon print plugins for quite some time - I like the PS printing plugin for my iPF8300, but BPC support vanished a while ago.

If I'm printing with it now and want BPC, I convert to my printer profile before calling the print plugin, and then print with no colour management

I can't further test for this as I no longer have the printer, but for those who find they need BPC, the easiest workaround is to print from PS or LR.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

GrahamBy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1813
    • Some of my photos
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #84 on: May 30, 2016, 03:00:38 am »

"Technical issues"?

ROFL....
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #85 on: May 30, 2016, 08:35:37 am »

"Technical issues"?

ROFL....

I don't presume to know more about technical design issues than the people who design and manufacture this equipment explain to me, so I won't even speculate. Rather than rolling on the floor laughing I just assume they have their reasons, they make their decisions on the specs knowing full well what the issue is, and so be it. It either influences potential customers' decisions to buy the printer or it doesn't as the case may be. Perhaps discussion of this single item has maxed-out its value-added.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

keithcooper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 417
    • Northlight Images
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #86 on: May 30, 2016, 09:00:58 am »

"Technical issues"?

ROFL....

Yes ;-)

In an interesting aside, from Epson that to my mind illustrates the issue, is that when I first got the SC-P800 to review (a pre production model) I queried the different maximum page lengths that appeared in different parts of the documentation.

It seems that the shorter length was partly due to amount of paper that could freely hang from the front of the printer before its weight affected printing. Of course this was nothing to do with how you'd actually make large prints (such as the 10 foot one I printed) but is indicative of how 'real' technical limitations affect what final specs are.

Now the conspiracist in me might also see the dead hand of marketing in such things, but the page length in the PRO-1000 could just be something as simple as the longest piece of paper that wouldn't fall off the output tray when fully extended.  Understandable but IMHO wrong ;-)

Oh, how I really would love to talk to the people who design and manufacture such products, but they are many levels of corporate organisation beyond the very helpful people in Canon UK I deal with...

Logged

sjohnstonus@hotmail.com

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #87 on: September 09, 2016, 11:34:15 am »

Today there is a DPR post (Printer forum) that describes an Australia Canon Pro-1000 firmware update v2.1

U.S. Canon site cites 7/20/16 v1.2 update as being current.

Any thoughts re: implications of v.2.1?
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #88 on: September 09, 2016, 01:59:08 pm »

Today there is a DPR post (Printer forum) that describes an Australia Canon Pro-1000 firmware update v2.1

U.S. Canon site cites 7/20/16 v1.2 update as being current.

Any thoughts re: implications of v.2.1?

The latest firmware version for the PRO-1000 is v2.0 currently on the Canon USA site as of Sept 1.

Canon Australia lists the same firmware version v2.0 updated on Sep 2 but they've added 2 extra digits to get to v2.010. I'm informed that there are not known to be no meaningful differences between the two versions, if any.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

roscoetuff

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 48
  • Skip Mersereau
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #89 on: October 05, 2016, 06:39:47 pm »

Mark:

Thank you for this review and for persisting in answering questions over a long period. I'm clicking in very late and don't know if your still check this thread out, but I have a question more about software operation. I'm aware that Kevin likes to use 3rd party printing software to run his Epson, and you've made mention of another 3rd party software program that might provide similar options for the Canon printers. I've been using Capture One for post and printing from within the program - but honestly I can't tell which software is driving the printer unless I were to produce a print ready image and then print that directly using 3rd party software. I'm assuming there's a benefit to this 3rd party biz.. but there's really no way of knowing. I wonder whether here in the forum or in a separate LULA article you and Kevin might address the benefits. I'm wondering whether Epson "needs" this more which is why the 3rd party software is focused there, or whether there were simply more Epson printers out in the market. I have no clue. I wonder whether you can comment here?

My experience with Canon lies in using their lower end inkjet (rather than this pigment ink) and I have to say the thing PRO-100 is an absolute tank, works every time even after sitting long months idle. The feed is tremendous and the ink doesn't clog. So I'm very sold on Canon... after not expecting to be (my 1990's experience with HP "Deskjets" was horrible!!!). But I see these printers are "better", their colors last longer... and they're a lot more expensive (I bought mine as an open box from B&H "used" for $150). So I puzzle whether there's greater, more accurate or controlled output, and whether there's really a point... but the case for durable color "fast" inks is fairly convincing. Kevin's made custom profiles using what I suppose is a print equivalent of the screen Spyder color adjustment we all use for our monitors. I'm also curious how many folks are doing this sort of fine tuning... makes sense to do it... but I find myself going down so many rabbit holes I start to wonder... whether the juice is worth the squeeze.

In the end, I suppose a $1,000 price point is justifiable for even for an amateur (like me)... but it's perhaps marginal ... and certainly much beyond that begs a photographer to consider whether it makes more sense in specific cases for added size to use a pro service bureau. Any thoughts on that aspect you can share? Surely for some there's no limit... but the "Back to the Print" articles began with the premise that folks weren't printing at all and we really need to provide incentives, and ease their way. Then again, we also have ways to make the simple complicated - given a chance. Pigment vs. Dye ink might not be the decision point, but do you have any other keys you'd suggest folks focus on in choosing a first printer, a "next" printer... or on some other basis that might not be readily apparent, but you find folks tend to gravitate towards?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
Logged
"Go out looking for one thing, and that's all you'll ever find." Robert J. Flaherty, Cinematographer

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #90 on: October 05, 2016, 08:50:44 pm »

Hi Roscoe,

The short answer to your question on third party printer drivers is that you don't need a Raster Image Processor (RIP) to make excellent prints using Photoshop or Lightroom and the native printer driver supplied with the printer. They have unique convenience , layout and file management features and some people claim superior results from them, but strictly speaking, especially as you seem to be just emerging from the elementary end of the printing enterprise, if I were you I would delay consideration of those processors for the time being. Not strictly necessary - and many fine professional photographers make and sell expensive prints without using them.

Dye-based printers will tend to clog less than pigment-based printers - this is inherent in the nature of the inks. These days some of the dye inks are showing longevity estimates that are not too far off those for the pogments - it depends on the inkset; you need to check websites such as Wilhelm-Research for that information, or the printer manufacturers' reported test results.

Practically speaking, in your shoes I would start out using the printer/paper profiles supplied by the manufacturers. Only if you get persistently disappointed by the results and the cause of the disappointment is not pilot error would I recommend custom profiles. Cheap printer/paper profiling kit is not likely to give you better results than the manufacturers' profiles. You have more assurance of consistently higher quality buying a higher end profiling kit, but that gets quite expensive and unless you intend to make a lot of use of it, most likely not worthwhile. Once you decide upon the two or three papers you will use most often, if you think you need custom profiles use a good profiling service such as Andrew Rodney (Digitaldog), or OnSight (Scott Martin if he is still offering the service to one-off customers) to make them for you. Much cheaper.

As for printers, if you want to move up from the Canon dye printer you are now using to something more professional, I would recommend an Epson P600, Epson P800 or a Canon Pro-1000. They all make excellent prints but they have different features, so you need to read the reviews and the views of other forum members who have used both and make up your mind which to buy.

I mentioned pilot error - the key to happy printing is to have your colour management properly set-up and make consistent use of soft-proofing in your image editing software with a properly calibrated and profiled display before pressing the print command. Too much to get into in a forum post but there is a lot of instructional material on this website indicating how to do this. The LuLa video tutorials "From Camera to Print" by Michael Reichmann and Jeff Schewe would do fine and they are fun to watch. I find Lightroom is the easiest path to fine printing these days; other people prefer other opinions. But you can test various image editing applications and settle on the one you can manage best.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Mousecop

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #91 on: October 05, 2016, 09:13:57 pm »

In the end, I suppose a $1,000 price point is justifiable for even for an amateur (like me)... but it's perhaps marginal ... and certainly much beyond that begs a photographer to consider whether it makes more sense in specific cases for added size to use a pro service bureau. Any thoughts on that aspect you can share?
Speaking for myself:

If you only print a handful of images, you're better off with a service.

If you want to make a lot of prints, owning a larger printer makes a lot of sense. You get better quality, more control, more convenience.

If you are OK with smaller prints (11" x 14") then you can save a few simoleons with a smaller printer.
Logged

roscoetuff

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 48
  • Skip Mersereau
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #92 on: October 05, 2016, 11:16:37 pm »

Mark: Thanks for clarifying!! I'm pretty happy with where I am at the moment. Canon Pro-100 does a nice job and is getting me oriented toward printing production as opposed to strictly web display. The 11 X 17 and 13 X 19 is plenty big and gives an impact. I think it' helps with editing a collection of photos to see a group printed. Very nice to see a reasonably large print of your own on the wall. Nice of you to strip it down for a guy like me. Thanks, and thanks for your continuing to monitor this thread. Amazing... actually, and very helpful. I think the folks who worry about the costs are either into production, or pinching it too hard. The thrill of what comes out of the printer... I can't get over it. And yes, the videos here are great. Lula videos taught me Capture One and got me into "The Print" and Jeff Schewe's book. As a friend said, "If you aren't printing, you're not (yet) into photography."
Logged
"Go out looking for one thing, and that's all you'll ever find." Robert J. Flaherty, Cinematographer

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #93 on: October 05, 2016, 11:23:26 pm »

You are welcome. And I agree - printing - works on paper - is at least half the thrill of photography.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

roscoetuff

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 48
  • Skip Mersereau
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #94 on: November 16, 2016, 10:28:33 pm »

Mark: Just wanted to pipe in that I've continued to ponder this over the past month. I think I'm coming to the conclusion that my original intention of upgrading from a dye-based Canon Pixma Pro 100 to Canon's new 17-inch Pro-1000 will not happen. Instead, I'm increasingly inclined to give the Epson P800 a shot. The P600 is essentially the same size I already have, so there's not enough "oomph" to make that appealing for the $ spent. On the other hand, moving from a 13-inch to a 17-inch adds a bit. Where the Epson appeals is in the footprint, weight, and roll feed option. Basically, I can have a smaller, lighter printer that can produce bigger prints and panoramas. That's appealing. Add the fact that the head clogs seem less problem-some than in the past together with some of the early month problems that folks report here with Canon... and I think the two are likely more even on service and reliability than perhaps I'd judged as favoring Canon in the past. I've checked with others who suggest there is a difference between these two in how they formulate their inks and this has an impact on glossies. Some suggest this favors Canon; others that Canon has caught up to Epson. For the most part, I'm considering the two reasonably close in quality and ahead of my current solution so that it's important to pay attention to the other details. In this, I hear the reds and blacks in Epson are well liked. I'd like to make a comparison myself, but I'm not sure where that option's available outside of Chicago or New York.

I've also tried to make some sense of why Epson's seemed to have 3rd party software for printing (but Canon did not until more recently), and wondered whether that was due to problems/needs with the Epson, larger installed base, or what have you, but contacted Imageprint and heard that in some respect the availability depends on  whether the manufacturer publishes the machine's protocols so that there's an openness to 3rd party drivers. Way into the weeds for me on much of this, but Kevin's made a case that some of the software offers a stability in workflow and ease of use that will outlast the particular printer, and I find that compelling. Imageprint also will drive the new Canon, but seems the forte' is Epsons. With my current Canon, I've gotten used to having it in the closet on wireless. An Epson would fit, but it may be better from a humidity perspective to have it down in the basement - especially if you add the roll feature accessories. I agree with those who post that it's not just the technical aspects of photography that are important, but the enjoyment of the process counts, too. That's a principle that guided me to recently replace all my lenses in moving to almost exclusive shooting fully manual. It ain't quick, but it's control and has a feel to the process I like... making the whole more fun. On the other hand, anything that can take the headaches out of printing... where I'm not looking to get into the weeds, but let software or someone else's genius let me see my work with as little fuss as possible. Plenty of folks will no doubt respond there's nothing added in Imageprint that LR or PS can't do... or perhaps even my favorite, Capture One. Paper profiling for the specific printer is also something Imageprint does... and though we're supposed to be able to load the manufacturer's profiles into software like Capture One, I've not figured that out yet, nor have I been certain that real whether it's Capture One or Canon that's controlling my output. This fuzziness doesn't become me. So I'm going to give Imageprint a try - even if I'd agree with others on the pricing as a bit steep. Truth be told, it's probably more reasonable than it seems if you were to consider 1) it's a small company, 2) they're doing service bureau-type work in some respects in profiling, and 3) the results and/or ease of generating them... are SUPPOSED to be worth the cost. Mileage may vary? Sure. I'll have to check mine, too!

But first things first. Don't know when I'm gonna pull this trigger, but there are discounts out there. Yes, the last ones just expired only to be replaced with new ones. Funny, huh? Any way, Thank you for your posts on printing, your articles and your interest in helping others. You're a real credit to the field, the profession, and even to those of us back-of-the-curve amateurs. Keep it up!! ;)
Logged
"Go out looking for one thing, and that's all you'll ever find." Robert J. Flaherty, Cinematographer

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #95 on: November 17, 2016, 01:08:12 am »

Thanks very much Roscoe, appreciated. I've read through your thought process just above and understand where you are coming from and the considerations that are important to you. My suggestions in Reply #90 remain what I would suggest under the circumstances. Regarding ease of use, either of those two printers aren't challenging once you learn how to use them. The Canon is likely a tad easier to manage because it keeps itself clean using internally controlled algorithms, but with the Epson, when it clogs you need to intervene with a cleaning cycle or more depending on the circumstances. But the Canon lacks roll-holding capability. Comparing features is often about trade-offs and you need to decide which is more important to you; that would guide your decision.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

roscoetuff

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 48
  • Skip Mersereau
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #96 on: November 18, 2016, 07:49:32 am »

Mark:

Thanks again and again!

I stumbled on this discussion and wonder whether you're familiar with Jon Cone and Piezography (see: http://jeffreyhughes.net/wordpress/2014/12/21/adventures-in-piezography/ as well as http://piezography.com/ ). Relying on a piece of RIP software ( http://quadtonerip.com/ which btw seems to be ding dong dead ). And I'm wondering whether this is "for real", current, or as so often seems, a work-a-round for a time that's been bypassed. Maybe it's current, too. Anything's possible. Seems very much in the roll-your-own category from the outside, but there's always a compelling story and solution for someone. Some of these are overlooked; some overlooked because the entry hassle is just too steep. Just curious whether you or anyone here is familiar with this and these folks and their process?
Logged
"Go out looking for one thing, and that's all you'll ever find." Robert J. Flaherty, Cinematographer

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #97 on: November 18, 2016, 10:32:32 am »

Yes Jon Cone's piezography inks are highly respected and probably played an important role improving B&W inkjet printing. Whether that remains the case today is hard to say - I certainly don't know and have no incentive to find out. When today's professional printers (such as the Epson P800 and the Canon Pro-1000) can reproduce blacks down to L*2 and deliver excellent grayscale rendition from 2 upward using the manufacturers' inks, as far as I'm concerned there isn't much more to be said; but that isn't informed by direct comparison of OEM inks versus Cone inks on these printers so I could be wrong.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

roscoetuff

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 48
  • Skip Mersereau
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #98 on: November 18, 2016, 12:06:51 pm »

"Whether that remains the case today is hard to say - I certainly don't know and have no incentive to find out."  ;)

"...when today's professional printers (such as the Epson P800 and the Canon Pro-1000) can reproduce blacks down to L*2 and deliver excellent grayscale rendition from 2 upward using the manufacturers' inks, as far as I'm concerned there isn't much more to be said"

Only thing that could/should be said for those of us relative neophytes is: See this article: https://luminous-landscape.com/new-epson-surecolor-p800-printer-review/
Wished I'd found that earlier. Thanks again for making my life simpler!
Logged
"Go out looking for one thing, and that's all you'll ever find." Robert J. Flaherty, Cinematographer

henrikolsen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 170
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #99 on: January 17, 2017, 04:33:28 am »

First thanks for the effort and nice results of a review like this. Much appreciated.

Now owning the model, I have noticed a couple of mentioned features I haven't found on my new printer.

One from the printer plugin:

"It has a function to adjust sharpness according to paper characteristics; I have not been able to test this to see what it really does, but sounds interesting." Cannot find this.

Another feature mentioned is:

"Profiling: While these professional printers are built to a high degree of uniformity from unit to unit, it can be that the OEM provided profiles may not be optimal for your particular unit. To cater for this potential issue without the user needing to buy any external profiling software, the printer has an in-built automated profiling capability that works with a set of printed patches and internal sensors to tweak the provided profiles. Also very cool."

Haven't found this either. Trying out the calibration feature, but haven't found the profiling feature anywhere. Will rely on the i1Pro for this still.

A request for sharpening observations:

Any experience using the "contrast reproduction" feature from the plugin? Haven't tried it yet, not using the plugin normally, and being busy testing lot's of other settings.
Doing color managing test prints (testing profiles and making comparative examples for myself and others), I noticed a few times that using "Managed by printer" from Lightroom (not using plugin), that sharpness appeared higher in micro details, compared with my normal ICC / LR managed use (same LR capture and output sharpen used for both). Wondering if the driver might be applying the "contrast reproduction" feature somehow, or otherwise applying sharpening not done when driver doesn't do color management. Anyone noticing this as well?

Regards
Henrik
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6   Go Up