Hi Everyone,
I know I should be out there now battling with the elements and shooting great snowy scenes, but for the moment I’m sitting in the warmth, thinking about doing some printing (digital) and wondering if any other members are using a Canon Prograf printer (IPF series).
Almost everyone seems to have Epson printers and I can find no mention of Prograf printers in the forum, but it would be useful if there was someone with whom I could occasionally share my problems/queries/etc. My original decision to buy the Canon printer was based on wanting roll capability and not wanting the hassle of swapping matt and glossy black inks, and whilst I certainly don’t regret the purchase it would be good to bounce ideas off others occasionally.
There is a very good Canon IPF Wikispace website with almost exclusively US members, but it would interesting to hear if there are any LF users with these printers here in the UK.
Kind regards,
Rod.
Canon Large Format Printers
Re: Canon Large Format Printers
Rod, one resource to check-out is Yahoo Groups, eg there is a i900 A3+ group, and several more. Not many members, but all Canon users. John
-
scovell001
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 10:17 am Etc/GMT-1+01:00
- Location: isle of wight
- Contact:
Re: Canon Large Format Printers
The guy who does my canvases for me locally here on the I.O.W uses the Prograf ipf8100. I'm hoping to spend some time profiling it for fine art over the next month or so.
I also make prints on the Epson 11880.
Epson have certainly done their marketing well. As you can see from just this forum, people are mainly buying an Epson regardless of trying out the other makes. Whats really bugging me about Epson is this introduction of chips on the ink carts. On the 11880 79/9900 if you try and use a third party compatible inkset it'll shut the machine down. Not so on the previous models.
It should also be known that HP printers are mainly used by professionals/proofing. The Art Group for 1 uses HP driven with a GMG rip.
What I've noticed thus far, is that Canon (and HP) printers are faster (even considering the 79/9900). They don't seem to do nearly as much head cleaning, and therefore seem to use a lot less ink.
On the flip side, the Inks for the LF Canon appear to be marginally more expensive than the Epson.
I've just started testing the Canon Prograf 8100, and have been extremely excited about the initial results I'm getting.
To summarise, what I've deduced so far is that:
1)Epson ink costs are extremely expensive, their machines seems to constantly want to do head cleans & wide gamut compatible ink carts for the 79/99 & 11880 from Cone Color seems to be a no no.
2)The Canon appears to have identical print resolution when set at 600dpi & has a deep extended blue gamut which renders Velvia beautifully. Prints using the standard driver appear to be tonally very good too.
Then of course there's the rip route, which can equalise the performance of the machines, and limit the ink usage on the Epson via GCR (grey component replacement).
I also make prints on the Epson 11880.
Epson have certainly done their marketing well. As you can see from just this forum, people are mainly buying an Epson regardless of trying out the other makes. Whats really bugging me about Epson is this introduction of chips on the ink carts. On the 11880 79/9900 if you try and use a third party compatible inkset it'll shut the machine down. Not so on the previous models.
It should also be known that HP printers are mainly used by professionals/proofing. The Art Group for 1 uses HP driven with a GMG rip.
What I've noticed thus far, is that Canon (and HP) printers are faster (even considering the 79/9900). They don't seem to do nearly as much head cleaning, and therefore seem to use a lot less ink.
On the flip side, the Inks for the LF Canon appear to be marginally more expensive than the Epson.
I've just started testing the Canon Prograf 8100, and have been extremely excited about the initial results I'm getting.
To summarise, what I've deduced so far is that:
1)Epson ink costs are extremely expensive, their machines seems to constantly want to do head cleans & wide gamut compatible ink carts for the 79/99 & 11880 from Cone Color seems to be a no no.
2)The Canon appears to have identical print resolution when set at 600dpi & has a deep extended blue gamut which renders Velvia beautifully. Prints using the standard driver appear to be tonally very good too.
Then of course there's the rip route, which can equalise the performance of the machines, and limit the ink usage on the Epson via GCR (grey component replacement).
Last edited by scovell001 on Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:27 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Canon Large Format Printers
The major difference between the Epson printers and Canon/HP is the head type. Epsons use piezo-electric heads and both Canon and HP use thermal heads. Very different design, and with different "issues" for each, there are pros and cons either way.
The thermal heads on Canons and HP are "consumables", in that the head has a lifetime and is designed to be replaced when "used up". The heads on Epson printers are designed to last the lifetime of the printer.
The thermal heads have many "spare" nozzles, i.e. they're not all used initially, and when during the lifetime of the head a nozzle becomes badly clogged, it is disabled and replaced with one of the spares. When you run out of spares, you have to buy a new head. The cost is not insignificant, but neither is as terrifying as you might assume. This is also the reason that Canon and HP printers should be left powered on (as opposed to Epsons), it keeps the head warm, and stops the nozzles clogging, and every so often the printer will start up and run it's own small cleaning cycle, and this keeps the head in tip top shape and prolongs it's lifetime. This isn't to say the heads will need replacing like ink-carts though, they do last a long time
The piezo-electric heads on the Epson printers use all the nozzles and do not have spares, and if one becomes clogged, it is "cleaned", and the head is designed to be able to withstand this more vigorous cleaning and be more robust to withstand the lifetime use of the printer, and only replaced if faulty. Epsons have a worse reputation for clogging, which is mostly (but not entirely) undeserved, as the others are clogging too, but they're just disabling blocked nozzles and enabling new ones so you don't see it. Also there's no reason to leave an Epson switched on, as it will do nothing to help, in fact when it's switched off the printer will park the head in an airtight cap to keep it from drying out. The safest way to keep these heads from clogging up is not to keep them in very dry conditions and to fire them up and print something fairly regularly, at least once a month, and you should have minimal problems.
The thermal printers are usually quicker at printing, although the latest gen TFP head from Epson is about 50% quicker than the previous gen, so the gap has closed. The piezo-heads are more consistent to my mind, in terms of profiling, as you're using the same head/nozzles, no changing variables, which is important to me. I don't like the idea of having to replace heads either, but that's just my preference.
My main gripe with the Epsons is the ink pricing which is scandalous, and the way Epson UK in particular aren't very helpful. The new 7900/9900 has three sized ink carts, and Epson UK only do the larger two, and refuse to do the smaller one ( which is 150ml! ). This means a full set of ink for one of these printers is about £1200 because you can only get the 350ml carts. Epson have also increased the ink prices by easily 50% in the last 3-4 years. I honestly don't know how the other manufacturer's inks compare price-wise, but I suspect the picture is not that dissimilar.
The thermal heads on Canons and HP are "consumables", in that the head has a lifetime and is designed to be replaced when "used up". The heads on Epson printers are designed to last the lifetime of the printer.
The thermal heads have many "spare" nozzles, i.e. they're not all used initially, and when during the lifetime of the head a nozzle becomes badly clogged, it is disabled and replaced with one of the spares. When you run out of spares, you have to buy a new head. The cost is not insignificant, but neither is as terrifying as you might assume. This is also the reason that Canon and HP printers should be left powered on (as opposed to Epsons), it keeps the head warm, and stops the nozzles clogging, and every so often the printer will start up and run it's own small cleaning cycle, and this keeps the head in tip top shape and prolongs it's lifetime. This isn't to say the heads will need replacing like ink-carts though, they do last a long time
The piezo-electric heads on the Epson printers use all the nozzles and do not have spares, and if one becomes clogged, it is "cleaned", and the head is designed to be able to withstand this more vigorous cleaning and be more robust to withstand the lifetime use of the printer, and only replaced if faulty. Epsons have a worse reputation for clogging, which is mostly (but not entirely) undeserved, as the others are clogging too, but they're just disabling blocked nozzles and enabling new ones so you don't see it. Also there's no reason to leave an Epson switched on, as it will do nothing to help, in fact when it's switched off the printer will park the head in an airtight cap to keep it from drying out. The safest way to keep these heads from clogging up is not to keep them in very dry conditions and to fire them up and print something fairly regularly, at least once a month, and you should have minimal problems.
The thermal printers are usually quicker at printing, although the latest gen TFP head from Epson is about 50% quicker than the previous gen, so the gap has closed. The piezo-heads are more consistent to my mind, in terms of profiling, as you're using the same head/nozzles, no changing variables, which is important to me. I don't like the idea of having to replace heads either, but that's just my preference.
My main gripe with the Epsons is the ink pricing which is scandalous, and the way Epson UK in particular aren't very helpful. The new 7900/9900 has three sized ink carts, and Epson UK only do the larger two, and refuse to do the smaller one ( which is 150ml! ). This means a full set of ink for one of these printers is about £1200 because you can only get the 350ml carts. Epson have also increased the ink prices by easily 50% in the last 3-4 years. I honestly don't know how the other manufacturer's inks compare price-wise, but I suspect the picture is not that dissimilar.
-
scovell001
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 10:17 am Etc/GMT-1+01:00
- Location: isle of wight
- Contact:
Re: Canon Large Format Printers
Just an update to this post. I've started profiling a Canon Prograf 8100 & have been extremely excited with the results. Currently working with Innova Ultra Smooth Gloss 285.
My initial thoughts are that Epson printers aren't nearly as good as the marketing says they are.
More info along with some print samples coming soon
My initial thoughts are that Epson printers aren't nearly as good as the marketing says they are.
More info along with some print samples coming soon
Re: Canon Large Format Printers
Hi Everyone,
Sorry I've been away and haven't kept up with my initial posting. Thanks John, Ian and DJ for your comments and help.
Before I bought the Canon iPF5100 I tried to do as much objective research as possible in comparison with the equivalent Epson 4880 and came to the conclusion that print quality from these machines was at a very similar level – different in certain ways yes, but neither inferior to the other. If I had thought print quality from the Epson was better overall, I would certainly have bought it (and tried to live with the gloss/matt ink-changing issues). As it was, the Canon was some 15% cheaper at the time and the inks were also more economical too. However, this is no longer the case as the Canon and Epson printers are now similarly priced, I think, and the Canon inks have since increased in price by a staggering 30%! They are now considerably dearer than any of the Epson tank sizes and it seems doubtful that the reported reduced ink usage for head cleaning on the Canon would compensate for this price difference. I still think the Canon is a great printer, but I’m not sure whether I would buy the Canon or the Epson if I had to make the choice today.
Print speed is something that doesn’t really concern me too much as I’m not churning out prints professionally, but Canon’s claimed very fast printing speeds are much exaggerated when printing at the highest quality, as I always do. Printing at 600dpi and selecting uni-directional printing in the printer driver slow things down enormously with the benefit (marginal) of better print quality.
Your gripe with Epson re ink pricing would I fear be very similar with Canon, where ink prices have shot up alarmingly in the last year. The ink tanks for the iPF5100 are “only” 120ml, but there are 12 of them, currently about £60 each! Someone mentioned in one of the other postings that there was no such thing as LF photography “on the cheap” – beware, this applies even more so to LF printing!
I’d be grateful if you could let me know if you’re printing directly via Photoshop, the Canon plug-in, or perhaps a RIP? In any case, I assume you’re printing at 600dpi highest quality, with uni-directional printing selected and sending the printer files already sized at 600ppi?
Apologies for the inquisition, but the latter query and the related issue of “native print resolution” for these printers seems to be a real “can of worms” – much discussed again on the Canon iPF Wikispace, but definitely a case of information overload without too much enlightenment!!
Kind regards,
Rod.
Sorry I've been away and haven't kept up with my initial posting. Thanks John, Ian and DJ for your comments and help.
John: I hadn't looked in the Yahoo Groups until you suggested it - unfortunately there's not much recent activity in the Canon Printers group, particularly in relation to the iPF X100 series, but I'll keep checking.Re: Canon Large Format Printers
by patawauke » Sat Jan 09, 2010 3:52 pm eP
Rod, one resource to check-out is Yahoo Groups, eg there is a i900 A3+ group, and several more. .....
Ian: Very interesting to hear that you may be using a Prograf iPF8100 in the near future. Unfortunately, I have only the much smaller iPF5100 (A2 version), but the print quality is identical I think.Re: Canon Large Format Printers
by scovell001 » Mon Jan 11, 2010 10:18 pm eP
The guy who does my canvases for me locally here on the I.O.W uses the Prograf ipf8100.......
Before I bought the Canon iPF5100 I tried to do as much objective research as possible in comparison with the equivalent Epson 4880 and came to the conclusion that print quality from these machines was at a very similar level – different in certain ways yes, but neither inferior to the other. If I had thought print quality from the Epson was better overall, I would certainly have bought it (and tried to live with the gloss/matt ink-changing issues). As it was, the Canon was some 15% cheaper at the time and the inks were also more economical too. However, this is no longer the case as the Canon and Epson printers are now similarly priced, I think, and the Canon inks have since increased in price by a staggering 30%! They are now considerably dearer than any of the Epson tank sizes and it seems doubtful that the reported reduced ink usage for head cleaning on the Canon would compensate for this price difference. I still think the Canon is a great printer, but I’m not sure whether I would buy the Canon or the Epson if I had to make the choice today.
Print speed is something that doesn’t really concern me too much as I’m not churning out prints professionally, but Canon’s claimed very fast printing speeds are much exaggerated when printing at the highest quality, as I always do. Printing at 600dpi and selecting uni-directional printing in the printer driver slow things down enormously with the benefit (marginal) of better print quality.
DJ: The thermal print heads and clogging “spare” nozzles are indeed a potential concern on the Canon printers and it was something I considered carefully before buying the iPF5100. However, having read extensively about this and users’ experiences on the Canon iPF Wikispace website, I decided to “ignore” this aspect – time will tell if I got it wrong! No problems yet with print consistency, though. Whether to leave the printer off or on standby when not in use is also a much-debated topic on the website, but the overall opinion seems to be is that switching off is best, which is what I do presently – again, time will tell if I’ve got this wrong!Re: Canon Large Format Printers
by DJ » Mon Jan 11, 2010 11:00 pm eP
The major difference between the Epson printers and Canon/HP is the head type.....
Your gripe with Epson re ink pricing would I fear be very similar with Canon, where ink prices have shot up alarmingly in the last year. The ink tanks for the iPF5100 are “only” 120ml, but there are 12 of them, currently about £60 each! Someone mentioned in one of the other postings that there was no such thing as LF photography “on the cheap” – beware, this applies even more so to LF printing!
Ian again: Thanks for the update on your Canon Prograf 8100 profiling. I’m glad to hear it seems to be going well, especially as I’ve been thinking of trying the Innova Ultra Smooth Gloss 285 myself. From what I’ve read, I thought this paper might be too glossy, but perhaps this isn’t the case?Re: Canon Large Format Printers
by scovell001 » Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:29 pm eP
Just an update to this post. I've started profiling a Canon Prograf 8100 & have been extremely .....
I’d be grateful if you could let me know if you’re printing directly via Photoshop, the Canon plug-in, or perhaps a RIP? In any case, I assume you’re printing at 600dpi highest quality, with uni-directional printing selected and sending the printer files already sized at 600ppi?
Apologies for the inquisition, but the latter query and the related issue of “native print resolution” for these printers seems to be a real “can of worms” – much discussed again on the Canon iPF Wikispace, but definitely a case of information overload without too much enlightenment!!
Kind regards,
Rod.
-
scovell001
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 10:17 am Etc/GMT-1+01:00
- Location: isle of wight
- Contact:
Re: Canon Large Format Printers
Rod,
Answers to your questions (hopefully):
1)I don't think the Innova USG is too glossy myself, I'd class it as a satin paper (Epson Exhibition Fibre but whiter) rather than a nasty RC type gloss. Personal choice, however.
2)Printing direct from Photoshop through the standard driver.
3) printing at 600dpi in the driver, bidirectional, images sized at 300dpi in p-shop, 260gsm Photo Paper Pearl media setting.
What has initially excited me about this printer is the neutral tonality on the profiling chart. With the Epson's I've profiled (3800,7880,9800,11880) you can always see darker areas of the chart becoming very dense. You know that the profile will automatically lighten this, but additional profile editing might be required in 'very extreme' scenario's to compensate for the Epson's tendancy to go dark.
With the Canon, the chart has come out beautifully with superb shadow separation. This leads me to believe that the prints will come out equally as neutral, rather than having to compensate for the driver. I'll post more within the next week when I've had a chance to test said profiles.
As a side note, with regards to the printers resolution, I don't know what it is.
Answers to your questions (hopefully):
1)I don't think the Innova USG is too glossy myself, I'd class it as a satin paper (Epson Exhibition Fibre but whiter) rather than a nasty RC type gloss. Personal choice, however.
2)Printing direct from Photoshop through the standard driver.
3) printing at 600dpi in the driver, bidirectional, images sized at 300dpi in p-shop, 260gsm Photo Paper Pearl media setting.
What has initially excited me about this printer is the neutral tonality on the profiling chart. With the Epson's I've profiled (3800,7880,9800,11880) you can always see darker areas of the chart becoming very dense. You know that the profile will automatically lighten this, but additional profile editing might be required in 'very extreme' scenario's to compensate for the Epson's tendancy to go dark.
With the Canon, the chart has come out beautifully with superb shadow separation. This leads me to believe that the prints will come out equally as neutral, rather than having to compensate for the driver. I'll post more within the next week when I've had a chance to test said profiles.
As a side note, with regards to the printers resolution, I don't know what it is.
Re: Canon Large Format Printers
Ian,
Many thanks for the profiling update and the answers to my stream of questions. I think your initial findings are sufficient to tempt me into trying the Innova Ultra Smooth Gloss 285. It looks like I have no excuses for not producing great prints!
Looking forward to your final thoughts,
Kind regards,
Rod.
PS According to the Canon iPF Wikispace, uni-directional printing gives better shadow resolution than bi-directional printing, the theory being that all ink dots are laid down in the same orientation with the former. Personally, I've been unable to tell the difference so far - except that uni-directional printing more or less doubles the printing time!
Many thanks for the profiling update and the answers to my stream of questions. I think your initial findings are sufficient to tempt me into trying the Innova Ultra Smooth Gloss 285. It looks like I have no excuses for not producing great prints!
Looking forward to your final thoughts,
Kind regards,
Rod.
PS According to the Canon iPF Wikispace, uni-directional printing gives better shadow resolution than bi-directional printing, the theory being that all ink dots are laid down in the same orientation with the former. Personally, I've been unable to tell the difference so far - except that uni-directional printing more or less doubles the printing time!
-
scovell001
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 10:17 am Etc/GMT-1+01:00
- Location: isle of wight
- Contact:
Re: Canon Large Format Printers
O.K. spent a lot of time on the IPF8100 over the weekend. Here's a post of my results:
First up the Canon was profiled with a BIll Atkinson 1728 patch target on Innova USG285. The media settings chosen in this instance were Pearl 260gsm (innova recommend Heavy Weight Photo 2) 600dpi & a the printers maximum resolution of 2400x1200dpi.
As you can see, the Innova Profile is very slightly larger indicating a marginally bigger colour gamut (MY CANON PROFILES ARE THE SOLID ONES IN BOTH CASES). There's a couple of reasons for this. 1) My media setting & 2) The machine itself. I'm tempted to think its a combination of the 2, & have reproduced a new target on Heavy Weight Photo 2 settings to compare. As you can see however the difference is minimal & with the Pearl 260gsm setting you'll be saving ink/money. I also noticed that my profile lightened the image more than the Innova profile & the resulting prints look excellent whereby the Innova profile would have left prints looking a little dark.
The next grab shows the Canon compared to the 11880. Its pretty much chalk & cheese here. The Epson has a larger gamut in some areas, & the Canon has a larger gamut in others (noticeably blue & yellow).
On the dynamic range test chart, we see the blacks go down to 02 (01 is actually just barely visible) & the whites go up to 253. This matches exactly what I see on my Eizo monitor & gives me option of making adjustments for shadow detail if required. One of the biggest complaints I here about is prints coming out too dark, & here we have the printer demonstrating its ability to render shadow detail as intended.
My next post looks at the Epson 3800 detail vs the Canon
First up the Canon was profiled with a BIll Atkinson 1728 patch target on Innova USG285. The media settings chosen in this instance were Pearl 260gsm (innova recommend Heavy Weight Photo 2) 600dpi & a the printers maximum resolution of 2400x1200dpi.
As you can see, the Innova Profile is very slightly larger indicating a marginally bigger colour gamut (MY CANON PROFILES ARE THE SOLID ONES IN BOTH CASES). There's a couple of reasons for this. 1) My media setting & 2) The machine itself. I'm tempted to think its a combination of the 2, & have reproduced a new target on Heavy Weight Photo 2 settings to compare. As you can see however the difference is minimal & with the Pearl 260gsm setting you'll be saving ink/money. I also noticed that my profile lightened the image more than the Innova profile & the resulting prints look excellent whereby the Innova profile would have left prints looking a little dark.
The next grab shows the Canon compared to the 11880. Its pretty much chalk & cheese here. The Epson has a larger gamut in some areas, & the Canon has a larger gamut in others (noticeably blue & yellow).
On the dynamic range test chart, we see the blacks go down to 02 (01 is actually just barely visible) & the whites go up to 253. This matches exactly what I see on my Eizo monitor & gives me option of making adjustments for shadow detail if required. One of the biggest complaints I here about is prints coming out too dark, & here we have the printer demonstrating its ability to render shadow detail as intended.
My next post looks at the Epson 3800 detail vs the Canon
- Attachments
-
- Quick scan of a dynamic range test chart
- range-tester.jpg (185.82 KiB) Viewed 4734 times
-
- Canon IPF8100 vs Epson 11880
- ipf8100-vs-11880.jpg (33.9 KiB) Viewed 4734 times
-
- Canon IPF8100 Ian profile vs Innova Profile
- Ian-vs-Innova.jpg (28.43 KiB) Viewed 4734 times
Last edited by scovell001 on Mon Jan 25, 2010 12:35 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00, edited 1 time in total.
-
scovell001
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 10:17 am Etc/GMT-1+01:00
- Location: isle of wight
- Contact:
Re: Canon Large Format Printers
In these next grabs we have detail scans of a Neil Barstow test chart. The Epson print was made on Epson's Premium Gloss Photo Paper 250gsm & the Canon on Innova USG 285. Its very difficult to demonstrate on the web, but the Epson clearly has jagged edges & this 'peppering' to tones whereas the Canon is much smoother. These scans are 100% crops of an A4 image scanned at 1500dpi. This is magnifying glass stuff, but looking at the 2 prints side by side the Canon clearly looks better despite looking like it has lower resolution here. I think this resolution issue is in part due to the different types of paper.
Finally, some 39" wide prints. These were scanned on my Imacon, scaled to 39" wide at 300dpi, sharpened with Photokit output sharpener (inkjet 300 glossy) then printed on Innova USG285.
Finally, some 39" wide prints. These were scanned on my Imacon, scaled to 39" wide at 300dpi, sharpened with Photokit output sharpener (inkjet 300 glossy) then printed on Innova USG285.
- Attachments
-
- Proof of the pudding is in the eating! 39" wide prints
- proof-of-the-pudding.jpg (125.5 KiB) Viewed 4734 times
-
- Canon 2400x1200 bi
- Canon Ipf8100 detail crop.jpg (46.69 KiB) Viewed 4734 times
-
- Epson 3800 2880x1440 bi
- Epson 3800 detail.jpg (71 KiB) Viewed 4734 times
Re: Canon Large Format Printers
Thanks for that Ian, an interesting read. Having never had the opportunity to really have a good play with a Canon printer, it's interesting to see a close comparison like this.
The closeup scan of the test chart was interesting, the Canon seems to be more consistent in the dot placement, and I'd be intrigued to see the same section as produced by your 11880 with the newer TFP head.
The closeup scan of the test chart was interesting, the Canon seems to be more consistent in the dot placement, and I'd be intrigued to see the same section as produced by your 11880 with the newer TFP head.