Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Printer Decision  (Read 8575 times)

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Printer Decision
« Reply #20 on: February 05, 2017, 09:05:59 pm »

Are we talking about the same printer? When selecting the OVERALL mode on my Pro-1000, I find both total image area and print margins  are coated with CO, whereas with Auto mode, the image area only is coated, but CO is also throttled way back in highlight and pure image white areas as well. So for best coating of all image highlights I have to switch to the OVERALL mode, but that dumps CO on margin white areas as well. I'm actually fine with that, and using a borderless page setting the CO extends right out to the cut sheet edges which is what I want, but I could see for people trying to economize on CO usage yet still have the optimal results in the image area, having an option to confine the superior "OVERALL" coating effectiveness strictly to the image areas only and not extend into paper margins would be a useful option that currently does not exist in the Canon driver, AFAIK.

Actually I was doing a test on this just last night, and indeed, when the setting is in OVERALL, it coats the image area - all tones - but not the margins, so viewed at unnatural angles one does see a gloss difference between the margins and any adjacent white or nearly white areas that do get coated as part of the print area in OVERALL mode. Maybe it depends on the paper how much difference one sees. This was using a sheet of Hahn Photo Pearl I happened to have available for doing this test. The Canon Pro-1000 manual does specify that Overall coats the print area. I read that to exclude the margins, as appeared to be the case in my test.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

MHMG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1290
Re: Printer Decision
« Reply #21 on: February 05, 2017, 09:26:39 pm »

Actually I was doing a test on this just last night, and indeed, when the setting is in OVERALL, it coats the image area - all tones - but not the margins, so viewed at unnatural angles one does see a gloss difference between the margins and any adjacent white or nearly white areas that do get coated as part of the print area in OVERALL mode. Maybe it depends on the paper how much difference one sees. This was using a sheet of Hahn Photo Pearl I happened to have available for doing this test. The Canon Pro-1000 manual does specify that Overall coats the print area. I read that to exclude the margins, as appeared to be the case in my test.

Part of the visual appearance issues with CO is that it really isn't a very good "gloss optimizer", especially on non RC media like Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Pearl. You need to look at the paper margin areas with "borderless" printing NOT selected and where the normally printable margins of the printer quit and the true page edges actually end. Observing the non printable parts of the margins, I can see that CO has indeed extended past the image area when choosing "OVERALL". However, because it doesn't do a great job totally covering pure white areas and fully eliminating differential gloss, it may seem like it's not really going beyond the image area. But it is, at least on my Pro-1000 printer with my current firmware/software (which I believe is totally up to date, but I should doublecheck).  So, perhaps Canon has changed something in the various printer driver versions available. I will recheck tomorrow to find out which driver version I"m on currently. Maybe that can also explain the discrepancies you and I are observing. Canon did just that with the Canon Pro-1. Canon actually removed a nice advanced CO coverage feature in a later driver version on the 13 inch Canon Pro-1 model which used to give the enduser more options on how the CO got laid down. Lame move on Canon's part, IMHO!
Logged

francis_walden

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
Re: Printer Decision
« Reply #22 on: February 05, 2017, 10:01:13 pm »

I’ve worked with an Epson 2200, 3800 and 7900, and I’ve had a P800 for about a week. I can’t comment on the Canon Pro 1000 as I’ve never been in the same room with one.

As with yours, my 3800 is working well after what must be 8 years. I made 6 prints this morning, all on Hot Press Natural, and they look great. I love the ease of loading thick paper in the back, and the sheet feed has always worked well. The front door latch broke early on and so I’ve been taping it shut all these years, but that only adds to its charm.

The 7900 yielded prints for two exhibitions. It always felt solid and professional. But the first head went after about 6 months (replaced under warranty at no cost to me) and the second head is going now, 4 years later (at least I think it’s the head, but maybe it’s just the dampers). Epson will fix it for an estimated $2000.00. Rather than accepting that offer, I’m giving it to the first person who shows up with $300.00 for the carts (but they have to take the printer too. Manhattan, ground floor, printer will fit out the window. PM me).

The P800 makes great prints, but I find it clanky and plasticy and, as with unesco above, I’m having a difficult time adjusting to the front sheet feeder. Why did they change from the rear-feed system on the 3800? I purchased the P800 over the Canon Pro 1000 only because it’s much lighter and I have to carry my 17" printer with me to summer venues. Also, I was thinking of adding the roll adapter and sticking with 17" prints for a while but, given that the P800 feels at bit flimsy to me, I think that I’ll instead purchase the Canon Pro 2000 ($300 rebate until the end of March) and use that as a 24", roll-paper, non-peripatetic workhorse.
Logged

Stidik

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8
Re: Printer Decision
« Reply #23 on: February 07, 2017, 12:38:55 am »

You have received some excellent advice in the above posts from some very knowledgeable experts to help decide between the Epson P 800 and Canon pro 1000 printers. If the price and features wind up being equal, one part of history to remember is the very poor support the owners of the Epson 4900, 7900, 9900 printers received when their printheads clogged excessively. The Internet and this forum was full of complaints from unhappy owners. One YouTube video promised a guaranteed repair method for the Epson 7900 printer. It was a video of the owner demolishing his expensive printer with a sledgehammer in his Driveway.

Epson's answer to everyone's problem was for the owner to purchase a new very expensive printhead, pay a huge fee for installation, and then hope it would work, but no guarantees. Rather than pay for the repair of my 7900 I decided to purchase a new on sale Canon IPF 8400 printer. I've had no problems with excessive cleaning, printhead clogs, or any other mechanical problems. The output has been excellent.

My point is that Epson had a major design fault, and poorly supported their machines and customers. I don't know how everyone else feels, but I feel I was let down, and expected more from Epson.
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22813
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: Printer Decision
« Reply #24 on: February 07, 2017, 05:49:00 am »

On the other hand, the P800 is more closely related to the 3800 and 3880, both of which have much better track records than the bigger Epsons.
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

gkroeger

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 226
Re: Printer Decision
« Reply #25 on: February 07, 2017, 07:38:00 am »

John:

This is a tough choice... as it should be since both companies have produced fine printers. I ended up with the P-800 and am very pleased. No roller or pizza-wheel marks, great color, no clogs despite periods of up to 2 months without printing. One factor to consider is maximum print length. Canon maxes out at about 23" whereas Epson can print panoramas on roll paper. I use 17"x25" paper regularly.

Good luck.
Logged

howardm

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1984
Re: Printer Decision
« Reply #26 on: February 07, 2017, 08:03:39 am »

The Canon 1000 can do up to 25.5" w/ latest firmware.

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Printer Decision
« Reply #27 on: February 07, 2017, 08:49:59 am »

........ If the price and features wind up being equal, one part of history to remember is the very poor support the owners of the Epson 4900, 7900, 9900 printers received when their printheads clogged excessively. ...........

Speak for yourself, but I have always received orrect support from Epson within the terms and conditions of their warranties on any Epson printer I've owned over the past 17 years, including very useful, free, out of warranty telephone support.
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: Printer Decision
« Reply #28 on: February 07, 2017, 08:53:39 am »

On the other hand, the P800 is more closely related to the 3800 and 3880, both of which have much better track records than the bigger Epsons.

Hi Eric,

Yes you are correct, and the reason is that these printer series are designed for different kinds of usage. The x900 series is designed for fairly continuous operation, whereas the x800s you mention are rather more directed at the prosumer market ,even though they make professional quality prints when the files are properly edited and colour management is correctly set-up.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

gkroeger

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 226
Re: Printer Decision
« Reply #29 on: February 07, 2017, 09:50:03 am »

The Canon 1000 can do up to 25.5" w/ latest firmware.

Thanks Howard... that's good to know. I might add the Canon in the future.

Glenn
Logged

jemsurvey

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 59
Re: Printer Decision
« Reply #30 on: February 07, 2017, 02:54:49 pm »

I was also wondering if there is any practical difference between the manufacturer's specifications for maximum print resolution where the P800 is listed at 2880 x 1440 and the Pro 1000 at 2400 x 1200.  Would I likely be able to see this in prints 8.5" x 11" and smaller?  Would it manifest as an apparent sharper print for the higher resolution?

Thanks again
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Printer Decision
« Reply #31 on: February 07, 2017, 02:57:08 pm »

No.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Stidik

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8
Re: Printer Decision
« Reply #32 on: February 07, 2017, 11:55:00 pm »





 I agree, for the first year when the warrantee is in place you get great support and service.  One year is a relativelyq short period of time. So after one year their support is gone.   I believe when they have a design flaw they should step up to the plate and help make it right.  Judging by the numerous posts in this forum and on the Internet I believe the Epson 7990 and 9900  printers  have a design which leads to an inordinate percentage of their printheads becoming clogged  and no longer being serviceable.  The cost of a new print head and the professional installation  fees and the lack of a guarantee that the replacement will even fix the printer problem results in most people abandoning their printer. It becomes much more economical to purchase a new printer filled with ink and enjoying a new warranty. From a business relationship and ecologic standpoint I believe the Epson printer head failure is intolerable.  I'm fairly sure that I'm not the only owner of an Epson 7900 or 9900 printer who  is unhappy with the lack of support once our one-year warranty  expired.   Had Epson  sold us a new print head at cost and installed it at a discount  then I think there would have been many more satisfied Epson customers using Epson printers and buying Epson inks and not having to write posts like the one I've just written.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2017, 12:12:03 am by Stidik »
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Printer Decision
« Reply #33 on: February 08, 2017, 07:45:43 am »

First of all, your reply is included in my quote. Please delete your post and repost it separating the two so it is clear to readers that I did not say what you said. To do this you need to begin your response outside the parentheses that include the quote of exactly what I said.

Secondly, you're talking as if you have authoritative data describing Epson's world-wide printer market and the percentage of these machines that experience premature failure when used in the manner for which they were designed. You don't, because if you did you wouldn't be allowed to talk about it; and the fact that you don't means that none of the opinions in your post have an identifiable evidentiary basis supporting or justifying your sweeping generalizations - and let me add that complaints on the internet are a woefully inadequate and technically unsatisfactory sample for representing the population of owners.

For what it's worth (being a sample of one) I'm not saying there isn't an issue. I have owned a 4900 for over five years, I know what kind of clogging behaviour it exhibits under what specific usage conditions, and that these issues would most likely be replicated under similar usage conditions in the hands of other owners; I also know how to avoid most of this difficulty and to clean it up when it occurs, because Epson tech support are the first people to provide this advice and they do so - free. While I would prefer less wastage of time and ink maintaining this printer, as far as I'm concerned the issue is of a very different character and more benign solution path than what you are talking about. On top of which the build quality is extremely robust and it makes gorgeous prints reliably and relatively quickly.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

JayWPage

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 216
    • Jay W Page Photography
Re: Printer Decision
« Reply #34 on: February 08, 2017, 01:19:08 pm »

The Canon 1000 can do up to 25.5" w/ latest firmware.

I wonder if someone could clarify for me what "do" means, can the Canon only print a 25.5" image (as in lay down ink for 25.5" on the paper) or it can only accept a sheet of paper that is a maximum length of 25.5" long (or both)? What happens if you print, say a 25.5" long print on a 28" sheet of paper?

What if you were using ImagePrint, is anyone here using it for the Canon 1000? ImagePrint seems to be able to override Epson's paper length restriction, maybe they can do it with the Canon 1000 too? ImagePrint recently added support for the Canon 1000 printer.
Logged
Jay W Page

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Printer Decision
« Reply #35 on: February 08, 2017, 01:35:09 pm »

It won't print more than 25.5 inches including the margins regardless of the sheet size. I don't know if there would be difficulty getting the paper out if you insert longer than 25.5 inches, so unless someone knows otherwise, I wouldn't try it. Not useful anyhow. As for ImagePrint, best ask them.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

jemsurvey

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 59
Re: Printer Decision
« Reply #36 on: February 08, 2017, 03:45:15 pm »

Thanks again everyone for your help.  I have ordered the Canon.  Now to choose a new camera.....
Logged

unesco

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 254
Re: Printer Decision
« Reply #37 on: February 09, 2017, 06:04:47 am »

On your #7, I've seen no evidence of this in four P-800s I've used.
On your #8, this is objectively (i.e. by-the-numbers) not necessarily correct. Much depends on the paper and the profiling. The best assurance of B&W neutrality (and I share your perspective that it's not very important to me) is to use the B&W printing mode that both printers offer. The downside is losing some control over tonality.

Ad 7) Me and my friends have opposite experience as for pizza wheel marks (but mostly seen with EEF paper). You were lucky or we were unlucky...
Ad 8) I think this is missunderstanding - I meant the ink itself, printed separately from each channel, not through ICC profile. Using QTR, one has to use some not so small amount of cyan and magenta to neutralise carbon-like K, LK and LLK. I have numbers if you wish :-).
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Printer Decision
« Reply #38 on: February 09, 2017, 08:55:08 am »

Ad 7) Me and my friends have opposite experience as for pizza wheel marks (but mostly seen with EEF paper). You were lucky or we were unlucky...
Ad 8) I think this is missunderstanding - I meant the ink itself, printed separately from each channel, not through ICC profile. Using QTR, one has to use some not so small amount of cyan and magenta to neutralise carbon-like K, LK and LLK. I have numbers if you wish :-).

OK, re 8, I don't do QTR so I wouldn't know; thanks for the offer of the data - it may be useful for other readers who do use QTR.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

unesco

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 254
Re: Printer Decision
« Reply #39 on: February 09, 2017, 04:02:41 pm »

I will try to put some figures during coming weekend. I just fight with QTR since 3880 curves are useless for P800 and I would like to achieve that beautifull little warm - little neutral tint so well looking at warmtone Baryta papers.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up