Information request for Canon PRO-4000 from long time users

[Panagiotis]

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?

[John Caldwell]

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

[Panagiotis]

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!

[Dan Wells]

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.

[Mark D Segal]

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.

[Czornyj]

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.

[Mark D Segal]

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.

[Czornyj]

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.

[Dan Wells]

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.

[Terry_Kennedy]

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.