Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 17 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: ipf5000  (Read 372877 times)
Gemmtech
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 526


« Reply #100 on: June 24, 2006, 07:13:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi
 We own the Canon i9950 which we have had for a year. Our Epson 1280 had a blue cast maby it was a problem one and we had it serviced to. Our first 1270 was a better printer to get prints out. At the moment we are using Jet Tec inks in the Canon i9950 and are getting excellent results plus saving over 80% on ink costs. In Australia we are paying about $25.00 per cartridge (Canon) , with 8x that is $200.00, we just reload the catridges as we go. these inks are made in the UK. Has anyone been using LYSON inks lately? i saw on there web page inks for the Epson 4800.
Thanks Denis
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69037\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think you probably had a bad 1280, absolutely no cast with our 1280.  Even though we still run all the printers we did recently purchase a color laser for a lot of the "draft" (it's acceptable to show, but it's NOT a photograph) work, it's an Okidata C9600 and for a color laser it's darn good, plus it'll do 12x18 or even 12.9 x 47.24 though we haven't tried it for this size yet.  The speed is phenomenal (we are talking pages per minute, rather than minutes per page).  This unit will phase out all of the inkjets eventually with the exception of the pigment based units because we still need archival prints for some clients.

These printers are incredible today, it seems like just yesterday HP came out with the "Photosmart" NOT a great photo printer, but again I still have prints from it that aren't terrible.

I've always been curious about 3rd party inks and why people use them, is it cost? Print quality? Archivability?  I've always thought that the best inks and papers were generally the ones recommended by the manufacturers of the printers, but I've certainly have learned that there are some great papers out there, NOT just Epson and Canon (for Canon)

G
« Last Edit: June 24, 2006, 07:21:10 AM by Gemmtech » Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4782



« Reply #101 on: June 24, 2006, 07:53:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Something that may not be obvious is that while the printer confirms that the paper is the size that you say it is, it has no way of knowling if it is the type or thickness that the setting you choose would imply.

Therefore, if the printer isn't programmed to accept a certain paper thickness from the cassette (tray) tell it that it's something else and see what happens.

Michael
Logged
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #102 on: June 24, 2006, 09:18:00 AM »
ReplyReply

My question is consistency.

I have a friend who had one and immediately profiled it (and yes, he knows what he's doing) and loved the results.  Initially.  Then he found his profiles would not hold.  IOW his colors would shift for the same print on a daily basis, like the nozzles were not laying down the ink in a consistent fashion.  Short version is he returned it to Canon and is back to using his Epsons.

Obviously, he could have had a bad sample so I am curious what others will find as this printer fills the market.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2006, 09:18:55 AM by Jack Flesher » Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #103 on: June 24, 2006, 09:18:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Michael,

For the benefit of all those interested in this topic, your post has triggered in my mind an issue you have already explored but needs to be put on the table in a slightly different way.

You start your post by saying "Something that may not be obvious" - well, that is the genesis of problemo numero uno: for something as fundamental as putting paper into a printer, especially in a situation where we are dealing with four feeds, differing sizes, differing thicknesses and differing finishes it can get complicated if it isn't laid out properly; hence especially under these circumstances there should be NOTHING that "may not be obvious". It shouldn't be necessary to have to trick the printer into doing what it should do straightforwardly. If anything about this procedure is not obvious, Canon has a commercial and a moral obligation to all its customers to make it obvious.  (Please tell them I said so - that will make them shake in their boots   ) For sake of clarity if Canon is reading this material, the OBJECTIVE FUNCTION we are trying to satisfy is that users of this printer should be able to easily understand what papers can fit into what feed option properly and easily with the printer recognizing the choices made and accepting them as such. If Canon can't satisfy this objective function between the firmware, the software and the instruction manual someone there needs to be taken behind the shed for "re-education". (ouch   )

Related to the foregoing, "experience accounts" are starting to appear in this thread, which is wonderful. We're getting some valuable real-life feedback which combined with your review provide more information to forthcoming customers -  aways a good thing. But some of it causes concern. Wayne Fox mentions earlier in this thread an issue about rendering of detail, which he believes may be affected by excessive saturation resulting from the choice of "Special 4" versus "Special 3". What is this stuff? Apparently it is related to how the ink reacts with the paper choice. It seems we are dealing here with something that is conceptually different from what one finds in the Epson driver, and therefore another element of the adjustment set to be on top of - but again, that is facilitated with clear, detailed instructions from the manufacturer about what these special setttings do to the ink and the paper.

And perhaps more fundamentally underlying both of the above factors, in this day and age with virtually every customer wanting to use a whole variety of papers (one of the main reasons to buy this machine - no ink switching), Canon again - if they had solid commercial horse-sense - they would realise this and design the paper settings to be "brand-agnostic" and user-friendly for selecting the media type of our choosing. This way we would be quite at ease buying the Canon printer, buying their inks, and print happily onward on the media of our choice without mental gymnastics. Where the rubber hits the road on this issue is the point at which the need to fool around blind-folded with paper options and inking levels can impair the outcome of an otherwise properly colour-managed workflow.

Canon's commercial success with this printer and its successors could well be affected by how quickly and effectively it responds to these issues, assuming they are real issues.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Brian Gilkes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 431


WWW
« Reply #104 on: June 24, 2006, 12:49:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
My question is consistency.

I have a friend who had one and immediately profiled it (and yes, he knows what he's doing) and loved the results.  Initially.  Then he found his profiles would not hold.  IOW his colors would shift for the same print on a daily basis, like the nozzles were not laying down the ink in a consistent fashion.  Short version is he returned it to Canon and is back to using his Epsons.

Obviously, he could have had a bad sample so I am curious what others will find as this printer fills the market.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69050\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is highly disturbing. We need an answer to this one , and quickly.
Such a serious matter must be refuted with empirical facts eg proveable Delta Ev variability, lucidly explained, or if fact, immediately fixed.
Brian
www.pharoseditions.com.au
Logged
K P
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 98


« Reply #105 on: June 25, 2006, 04:14:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This is highly disturbing. We need an answer to this one , and quickly.
Such a serious matter must be refuted with empirical facts eg proveable Delta Ev variability, lucidly explained, or if fact, immediately fixed.
Brian
www.pharoseditions.com.au
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ya... this doesn't sound all that good whatsoever.

On a different note though, I would like to point out that at least for me, the Epson 4800 does give me gorgeous blues, and nothing like the purple that Michael is suggesting.

Take a look at the picture below.  A picture of a color on its on may not have much reference, but given the fact that I have blue markers, a Kingstron Pro card with a blue swatch on it, a Fujifilm simdle of DVDs in blue, and a purple swatch from Verbatim DVDs, it quite obviuos that the blue in my picture from a recenent wedding is gorgeous.  So I'm not exactly sure while Michael says that hits blues from the Epson are purple compared to the Canon.

[a href=\"http://www.kiranpolach.com/DPreview/epsonblues.jpg]http://www.kiranpolach.com/DPreview/epsonblues.jpg[/url]

Kiran
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8599



WWW
« Reply #106 on: June 25, 2006, 05:13:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The positive? Set-up was a breeze and the 16 bit Photoshop driver looks to be very good, but there is a downside to that as well. Who has 16 bit ICC profiles? Will Crane, etc...develop 16 bit profiles? Are the Canon ICC profiles for just the 8 bit? Again, no documentation!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69002\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Shouldn't be an issue. Profiles don't really have a "bit depth" like the files you send through the printer. In fact, Photoshop does all color conversions in ACE using 21 bit precision. So you could use Convert to Profile and then (I assume and hope) send the color managed data though the driver/export module. ImagePrint also has a 16-bit (high bit) path and works dandy with ICC profiles (supplied or ones you make).
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8599



WWW
« Reply #107 on: June 25, 2006, 05:16:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
My question is consistency.

I have a friend who had one and immediately profiled it (and yes, he knows what he's doing) and loved the results. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69050\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Excellent point. Not only would it be interesting to output a target of patches a few hours and days apart and compare the differences but also the differences from unit to unit. How consistent are the inks? Epson's are very, very consistent beasts. And Epson also supplies a utility to sync up (calibrate) multiple printers so a single profile can be used.

Michael, I don't know if you have a Spectrophotometer and something like ProfileMaker Pro. But if not, you could output a target (doesn't have to be large, 900 patches) and I could measure a bunch and let you know the average deltaE over the course of time. Ideally you'd also do this between switching one or more inks. Ideally the deltaE would be real low (4-5 or less would be nice).
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4782



« Reply #108 on: June 25, 2006, 05:32:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Andrew,

I have an Eye One, and Babelcolor, so that's not an issue. The problem is that I am now at my place in the country, while the printer is in the city. I'll be here almost full time for the next few months, followed by trips to Iceland, Spain, and then Germany for Photokina. That take us till the end of October.

So, while I agree that this test is important, I won't have the ability to do it for some time. Someone else had better jump into the breach.

Michael
« Last Edit: June 25, 2006, 05:34:25 PM by michael » Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8599



WWW
« Reply #109 on: June 25, 2006, 05:40:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The problem is that I am now at my place in the country, while the printer is in the city. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69114\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If it wasn't so heavy (you wrote about the palette) I'd suggest you just send it to me <g>.

If anyone else on the forum with the printer wants to run the test, I'd be happy to measure the targets and provide the results. Ideally you'd get a target from me I can read (very quickly) on my i0.

I only have an Epson 2400 and 2200 but I suspect that I could run tests with those units to come up with a consistency figure. I don't have one off the top of my head but my experience is that both printers are quite consistent in behavior even when replacing inks.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4782



« Reply #110 on: June 25, 2006, 06:11:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Here's a thought.

Let me have your patch. I'll make a print with mine, on belonging to a dealer that I know who has one on display, and a friend's. He's getting it in about a week.

You or I can then measure the results from these three printers.

Michael
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8599



WWW
« Reply #111 on: June 25, 2006, 06:36:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Here's a thought.

Let me have your patch. I'll make a print with mine, on belonging to a dealer that I know who has one on display, and a friend's. He's getting it in about a week.

You or I can then measure the results from these three printers.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69117\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Just sent you the target. On the i0, it will take 3-4 minutes to measure so it's super fast and easy. I can also generate a profile from the data. With ProfileMaker Pro, I can compare any two targets and give you the delta's. By all means, hand it out to anyone you wish. Let's of course be consistent with paper and driver settings.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4782



« Reply #112 on: June 25, 2006, 07:04:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Got it.

When I have all three printers at hand, I'll make the prints and send them to you.

Should be in a few weeks.

We can publish the results here and as a follow-up to the review.

Do you have comparable measurements from different 4800s?

Michael
« Last Edit: June 25, 2006, 07:05:28 PM by michael » Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8599



WWW
« Reply #113 on: June 25, 2006, 07:21:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
We can publish the results here and as a follow-up to the review.

Do you have comparable measurements from different 4800s?

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69122\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sure.

As for the 4800, output the targets as well on the same paper(s). I probably have dozens of measured data files from that printer but none I've printed. Plus, if you control it from square one, we know it's all Kosher.

What will be interesting is to see how the linearity of the patches appear between the two printers. Using the NO Color Adjustment settings on the Epson driver, the results are pretty non linear although much better than the last generation of printers from Epson. It will be interesting to see how the Canon compares using whatever comparable setting one would use to get this kind of output.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
dlashier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 518



WWW
« Reply #114 on: June 25, 2006, 10:56:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have a friend who had one and immediately profiled it (and yes, he knows what he's doing) and loved the results.  Initially.  Then he found his profiles would not hold.  IOW his colors would shift for the same print on a daily basis, like the nozzles were not laying down the ink in a consistent fashion.  Short version is he returned it to Canon and is back to using his Epsons.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69050\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jack, are you sure this isn't just curing. How long had they dried? There's no way I would attempt to compare two epson prints made a day apart without waiting at least a few days. Perhaps the Canon prints take a bit longer to settle.

- DL
« Last Edit: June 25, 2006, 10:58:15 PM by dlashier » Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #115 on: June 26, 2006, 12:33:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
On a different note though, I would like to point out that at least for me, the Epson 4800 does give me gorgeous blues, and nothing like the purple that Michael is suggesting.

Kiran
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69107\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Kiran,

That test chart Michael was using shows a pure blue (at least in the file numbers) - it is a well-known target which I also use for verifying my colour management. I print with an Epson 4800 and I too have no problem with sky blue etc, but the reason for that is that those blues are seldom "pure" blue - i.e. RGB= 0,0,255. Skys for example generally have some magenta content. So the shades of blue we usually expect in real-world conditions will reproduce realistically on the Epson, but if you try to reproduce a blue = 0,0,255 you will get the result that Michael shows on the target. I have tried it many times and that is what happens.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
K P
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 98


« Reply #116 on: June 26, 2006, 01:11:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Kiran,

That test chart Michael was using shows a pure blue (at least in the file numbers) - it is a well-known target which I also use for verifying my colour management. I print with an Epson 4800 and I too have no problem with sky blue etc, but the reason for that is that those blues are seldom "pure" blue - i.e. RGB= 0,0,255. Skys for example generally have some magenta content. So the shades of blue we usually expect in real-world conditions will reproduce realistically on the Epson, but if you try to reproduce a blue = 0,0,255 you will get the result that Michael shows on the target. I have tried it many times and that is what happens.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69136\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I do understand what you are saying... but to me, with the exception of someone printing up product shots where matching color is necessary, it just isn't all that important to be able to print pure blue then.  Pure blue is much too neon looking to be a color that ever makes it in every day life.  

Besides this fact though, I hardly doubt that when the Epson tries to print a pure blue, it goes to purple.  I've printed test charts before which showed gradients leading from pure white to pure blue, and I guess if the pure blue isn't something that the Epson wasn't capable of printing, it sure didn't jump out at me from looking at the print.  Maybe if the Canon print was help up to it I'd see it better, but I certainly cannot understand why Michael is showing a purple swatch to represent a pure blue color that the Epson is giving him when I can get much much better looking blues, even if they do have lots of red in them.  That's what I can't understand.  Its as if he is saying that the best case scenario for getting a blue color out of an Epson is something which is somewhat purple, and this just isn't the case.

Kiran
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4782



« Reply #117 on: June 26, 2006, 07:21:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Andrew,

I'll be back in the city later today, for a couple of days. I'll make prints on my iPF5000 and the one at the dealers, and send them off to you right away. When my friend get's his printer in a couple of weeks I'll send you another.

I'm as curious as anyone about this. Ill do my own measurements as well, though I'm sure yours will be more comprehensive.

Michael
Logged
mr.dude
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


« Reply #118 on: June 26, 2006, 07:34:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I certainly cannot understand why Michael is showing a purple swatch to represent a pure blue color that the Epson is giving him when I can get much much better looking blues, even if they do have lots of red in them.  That's what I can't understand.  Its as if he is saying that the best case scenario for getting a blue color out of an Epson is something which is somewhat purple, and this just isn't the case.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69138\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

as an unbiased observer (i own neither printers) here's my take:
from the quote below, i don't see that micheal is saying that normal everyday prints from the epson have any odd purple tints to blues, just that the canon is producing more accurate blues than the epson on a test subject.  the readings from his measurements show that the epson sample has more red in it, which would contribute to a more purplish look.  that you interpret that as the same as saying the epson is producing an unacceptable purple tint in blues is your thing.  i just don't see it written below.  

"When I printed this chart for the first time on the iPF5000 I was knocked over by the blue gradient. I have never seen an inkjet print where this actually reproduced as blue. Every printer that I've ever used has reproduced this gradient as some shade of purple. With the new Canon printer it is a strong, saturated and very accurate blue.

In Photoshop the far left of the blue gradient measures R=0, G=0 and B=255.

 
Epson 4800  Canon iPF5000  

I wondered how it would be possible to show on the web what the difference looked like. If I scanned the prints there'd be all kinds of pitfalls in trying to achieve accurate reproduction. Then, as I was measuring the results in BabelColor I realized that along with numerical readings from the spectrophotometer, the program also reproduces on screen a patch of the color being read. Via screen capture, these are seen in the illustration immediately above.

Now, reading these patches again in Photoshop, we get the following:

Epson 4800: R=58, G=42 and B=149

Canon iPF5000: R=0, G=44 and B=177"
« Last Edit: June 26, 2006, 07:35:41 AM by mr.dude » Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4782



« Reply #119 on: June 26, 2006, 07:42:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Karin,

There are a lot of different blues in the world. They range from water, to sky, to butterfly wings, to soap boxes, to the colour of  a little girl's eyes. I'm sure that few if any will measure as 0,0,255, the way the right end of the gradient on my test chart does.

But that's not the point.

The point is that Canon has added Red, Blue and Green inks. In theory this should allow for the more facile (I won't use accurate because it's a loaded word) reproduction of saturated colours in those parts of the spectrum, and in one (maybe one and half) cases it does.

Just a couple of days after I started testing the Canon iPF5000 there was a seminar which brought several of the industries leading colour management and printing experts to town. They came over to my home / ofice before dinner and we sat around comparing test prints which I had made from the Epson 4800 and Canon 5000.

I won't put words in anyone's mouth, but there was pretty general agreement that the blues produced by the Canon were "bluer". Some thought that the greens were as well (not universally agreed), and everyone thought that the reds were better from the Epson.

So, one can debate whether reproducing an artificial colour gradient, the way I did, tells us anything useful about how a printer reproduces real-world colour, but in this case it did, and seemed to correlate pretty closely with the gamut plots which I produced and which are seen in the article.

Michael
« Last Edit: June 26, 2006, 07:46:09 AM by michael » Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 17 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad