Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon PIXMA PRO-1 Photo Printer  (Read 7017 times)
kuau
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 177


WWW
« on: January 25, 2012, 07:06:25 PM »
ReplyReply

could this be the best B&W printer now?
I hope canon releases a larger format with this new inkset
steven
Logged

__________________________________________________________________________
Sinar arTec, Leaf Aptus II 7 AFI, 35, 70, 135mm Sinaron lenses,  HP Z3200 PS Printer
artobest
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 264


WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 27, 2012, 07:45:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Strange that this printer seems to generating so little interest here, as it would seem to be perfect for many of us. The five-black inkset does look very interesting, even if it does come at the expense of some colour gamut. I think it's a bit soon to be calling it the 'best' for b&w though - a full Piezography set-up would likely still take that crown.
Logged

ihv
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 82


WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 02, 2012, 04:25:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Talking about the lack of interest, I think the major issue with this printer is the ink tank size.

In pamphlets, it is said to be 150% increase compared to previous models. Great, but in fact very small has got just small for now (for an A3 printer). Pay also attention that mostly 150% increase is only mentioned, rather than stating the actual ink tank size, which is 36 ml. Good for occasional use only.

Strange that this printer seems to generating so little interest here, as it would seem to be perfect for many of us. The five-black inkset does look very interesting, even if it does come at the expense of some colour gamut. I think it's a bit soon to be calling it the 'best' for b&w though - a full Piezography set-up would likely still take that crown.
Logged
nemophoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 507



WWW
« Reply #3 on: February 02, 2012, 02:49:53 PM »
ReplyReply

I just received from Adorama the printer I ordered back in November! I'll let you know how it is. But on ink capicity, it HAS to be better. I have both the iPF6100 (which I honestly use for almost everything anyway) and the 9500 Mark II. I swear, with very little pining, I was constantly replacing carts on the 9500. I pray the Pro-1 is as parsimonious with ink as the 6100. I never really liked the 9500, for as much as I love the 6100.

Nemo
Logged

artobest
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 264


WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 03, 2012, 04:19:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Great! I for one will be interested to know how you get on.

Logged

nemophoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 507



WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 10, 2012, 10:31:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Finally got a chance to do a few test prints with the Pixma Pro-1. I printed on Museo Silver Rag, from both Lightroom (see CONS) and Photoshop. These are my quick impressions.

PROS
-Extremely quiet - barely notice it's printing and don't consciously hear it finish
-Print quality is extremely high - much better than my 9500 II
-Relatively quick printing on my highest quality setting
-B&W images are beautiful and rich when printed as grayscale (see CONS)
-Color is vibrant, but accurate

CONS
-You MUST use the grayscale option to print B&W, otherwise the prints have a warm/yellow cast. This is VERY different from my iPF6100, where it -doesn't matter whether I send a print as grayscale or color to print a B&W image.
-Driver feels a little primative when setting up, but that might be just me.
-Printing from Lightroom yielded an incorrectly printed Last Inch. The image was approximately 10 inches with a .5" margin at each end, printed on Letter size paper. I had the same weird offset (last inch or so elevated above the rest of the image). This occurred with three prints from two images of the same subject (one color, one B&W). Photoshop did not produce the same printing error.

Overall, I'm much more impressed than i was with the 9500 II. To be honest, I always hated that printer and regretted my purchase. It was my first desktop printer purchase in nearly 8-years. (I used my Epson 4000 for years, eventually replaced by my iPF6100.) I'm just disturbed by the Lightroom printing results (is it a Lightroom bug??). I'm a little more disturbed that it does NOT produce a neutral B&W print, if you use all the inks, As I stated, my iPF6100 is the most neutral printer I've used to produce B&W prints (regardless if i send the images as color or grayscale), since my years with Piezography inks.
Logged

Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1312


WWW
« Reply #6 on: February 10, 2012, 12:15:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Strange that this printer seems to generating so little interest here...
If the rumors are true and we see a 17" version of it later this year I think it will generate a lot of interest. Canon could linearize the calibration better in the driver but custom profiles produce gorgeous B&W prints in color...
Logged

nemophoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 507



WWW
« Reply #7 on: February 15, 2012, 09:44:23 AM »
ReplyReply

I've had a chance to work with the Pro-1 more. I'm very impressed. First of all, I'm truly astounded by how quiet the printer is. I had both it and my 6100 printing at the same time. By comparison, the 6100 was deafening. The print time for the Pro-1 is definitely quicker than my old 9500 II, but it's still no speed demon. The quality is really superb, though. Also, I produce low volume promos using both the Red River art cards and the Museo art cards. The printer has no problems doing bleed printing on the Red River (5.5x8.5 folded), which the 9500 could not seem to manage. I ended up doing my own custom profiles of both papers, and the B&W was neutral using color inks. I think the lesson is, treat most supplied profiles as suspect. Do your own or pay to have someone do them for you. This didn't seem the case with canned profiles for the 6100, but definitely seems the case with the Pro-1.

Overall, I'm very pleased with the printer. It also is more parsimonious with ink. I'm still using the starter inks (which use more with initial charging) and all the inks still show a good level.

Nemo
Logged

artobest
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 264


WWW
« Reply #8 on: February 16, 2012, 08:03:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Why would you use colour inks for B&W when the printer has five greys?

Logged

nemophoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 507



WWW
« Reply #9 on: February 19, 2012, 08:22:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Why would you use colour inks for B&W when the printer has five greys?



For one, it allows me to judge how neutral and accurate a printer and profile are. If you see a shift in the B&W output when using color inks, the odds are the profile is off. Also, I find it's not unlike CMYK printing on a press -- you use "rich black" rather than just black ink to give a richer, darker black. The newer inkjets have lessened this, but, for me, it's a habit hard to break. Also, I sometimes like to tone my prints a slight sepia or cool tone, and that's impossible with only black inks.

Regarding my comments about profiles, through another posting I discovered Museo changed my old standby, Silver Rag, so obviously, my paper stock was different from the current Silver Rag.
Logged

buggz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 37


« Reply #10 on: February 21, 2012, 08:42:07 AM »
ReplyReply

I read somewhere, that the drivers for this printer STILL has the annoyance of FORCING huge boarders when using fine art paper?!
Is this true?
Why?!
I don't understand the insistence of this?
Can anyone enlighten me as to way this is forced, and cannot be turned off?

Do Epson printers do this also?
Logged
nemophoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 507



WWW
« Reply #11 on: February 21, 2012, 09:24:48 AM »
ReplyReply

I read somewhere, that the drivers for this printer STILL has the annoyance of FORCING huge boarders when using fine art paper?!
Is this true?
Why?!
I don't understand the insistence of this?
Can anyone enlighten me as to way this is forced, and cannot be turned off?

Do Epson printers do this also?

Unfortunately, it IS true. Additionally, you can't seem to use some fine art papers (Moab Entrada for instance) as 11x14 sheets. It seems to want to 13x19 instead. Very weird (additionally, it only specs those papers in European/metric sizes). Sometimes I think Canon lets engineers and programmers run wild without EVER consulting a photographer. That said, some of the idiosyncrasies of the 9500 have been addressed -- just not all of them. To me, output, the Pro-1 is hugely superior to the 9500, which I never really liked. The only work around is creating your own profiles, using photo matte paper as your base.
Logged

dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1260


« Reply #12 on: April 03, 2012, 07:45:57 PM »
ReplyReply

DPR have now posted a review of this printer online but it doesn't really go into much more detail than analysis of the gamut and looking at the hardware. There's one page where they look at printing and how the use of colour in B&W print works:

http://www.dpreview.com/printerreviews/canonpixmapro1/4

And as is typical for their reviews, they tell you about it but not what it means to own and use it.
Logged
nemophoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 507



WWW
« Reply #13 on: April 04, 2012, 10:55:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes, I saw that too. I also found that, not unlike what I said to an earlier poster about not using the "grayscale", Canon uses a dab of color mixed with the B&W inkset to give additional richness. Theoretically, it shouldn't do much to the overall archival quality since there's so little color used. I guess I'll just have to print a few images and check back in a hundred years.  Wink 

There are so many factors that seem to effect the archival quality. I remember printing some poster prints with my old Epson 7000 for a gallery showing (it was really a sign, not one of the actual prints, which at the time were made with Piezography Inks on a 3000), and the printed faded horribly in only two months! Yet, I made some 8x10 color prints using the same printer, on a different paper, and framed them, and they don't show a bit of fade. Either way, the ink set in the Pro-1 (and for that matter, almost any other pigment printer) is light-years ahead of the older dye sets.
Logged

MHMG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 623


« Reply #14 on: April 04, 2012, 01:50:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, I saw that too. I also found that, not unlike what I said to an earlier poster about not using the "grayscale", Canon uses a dab of color mixed with the B&W inkset to give additional richness. Theoretically, it shouldn't do much to the overall archival quality since there's so little color used. I guess I'll just have to print a few images and check back in a hundred years.  Wink 

There are so many factors that seem to effect the archival quality. I remember printing some poster prints with my old Epson 7000 for a gallery showing (it was really a sign, not one of the actual prints, which at the time were made with Piezography Inks on a 3000), and the printed faded horribly in only two months! Yet, I made some 8x10 color prints using the same printer, on a different paper, and framed them, and they don't show a bit of fade. Either way, the ink set in the Pro-1 (and for that matter, almost any other pigment printer) is light-years ahead of the older dye sets.

Photo gray inks are usually not full carbon pigment because full carbon is very warm not neutral. So, there are already additional colorants in the mix even if one constrains the printer driver to only using the photo grays. What I've been finding in various light fastness tests with numerous monochrome printing methods is that as the colored pigments fade first, noticeable hue shift occurs but usually not much of a loss in image density and contrast. Once the colorants burn out, the hue shift can be disconcerting, but the image contrast is still strong and additional fading after that point then proceeds at a much slower rate.

Funds aren't available right now, but I'm hoping to get some Pro-1 print samples, both color and B&W, into light fade testing this year. The Pro-1 has a novel ink set.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Logged
Martin86
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #15 on: April 05, 2012, 04:04:19 AM »
ReplyReply


 Hi, Im also interested in Pixma Pro-1 but being an amateur only (not printing regularly, only now and then), I do fear unbearable ink consumption.

 The feedback of some customers, who bought this printer on bhphoto, is not very encouraging....: 

 "...i use this product every day .. and every day i print around 30 11x17 . i use this one for Black and white and fine art printing most of the time .. What's wrong with it? .. the cost per print is very hi.somebody can explain why if i print only black and white i already change the complete set of inks.... twice !!! do some maths [$]printer+$350 inkset + $350 inkset ..i know it have to clean the heads but it just waste a Lot of ink... a Lot of ink ....a LOT of ink!"

"...A more serious concern I have is for ink consumption. I understand that about 1/3 of the ink tanks go into filling the printhead as the printer is installed. However, the printer used over 1/2 of the remaining ink in less than a week of testing. Total printed area about 4 or 5 13X19 sheets. I did turn on and off the printer several times, is this the reason for excess ink consumption? I now stopped testing as ink is not available in stock. I do not think this ink consumption is normal."

 How is your long-term experience please?

Logged
nemophoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 507



WWW
« Reply #16 on: April 09, 2012, 10:51:13 AM »
ReplyReply

My ink consumption hasn't been what I'd call excessive. I certainly got more than 4 or 5 13x19 prints off my starter inks, which used almost half to get the printer started. One thing that effects consumption is whether you do standard res or high res. The thing is, to the naked eye, there is little difference. I use both settings, depending upon what I'm printing, the media, etc. I've never felt the ink usage is ANY desktop printer was as efficient as my larger iPF6100. But, that said, I felt the 9500 Mark II was especially horrendous. It seemed on THAT printer, I'd do a three 11x17, and I'd have to replace half the carts. Part of it is, the longer the printer sits, the more it seems to need to purge and clean, and THAT is where the huge ink waste comes in. I guarantee Epson is no better. My old 4000 seeme to use half it's ink trying to clean the heads which were perpetually clogged it seemed.
Logged

Martin86
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #17 on: April 12, 2012, 03:58:54 AM »
ReplyReply


 Hi, thank you for your reply. I wonder what are the real costs per print with the Pro-1, though....  Have you calculated that for yourself in a long-term run? BTW, I have heard the Pro 9500 was horrid in that regard many times and was advised to avoid it at all costs Smiley.

 Thats the thing - Im going to print just occasionaly.  And Im scared by the prospective ink-consuming cleaning cycles....  Angry  Sure the Epson 3880 may be more economical but also it is double the price - it would take quite a long time to pay itself in the ink consumption for the difference.

 Im not a niggard you know but just hate to be being sucked dry by ink-cartel corporations (Canon + Epson).
Logged
abiggs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 555



WWW
« Reply #18 on: April 12, 2012, 07:52:25 PM »
ReplyReply

I haven't found one desktop printer over another to be much different with regards to ink consumption. I doubt you will ever get a clear cut answer about ink consumption with any of these printers, because it depends on so many variables. Besides, those who print themselves don't do it for a cost savings. Just get a printer and run with it.
Logged

Andy Biggs
http://www.andybiggs.com
Africa Photo Safaris | Workshops | Fine Art Prints
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1312


WWW
« Reply #19 on: April 12, 2012, 10:24:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Well said Andy!
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad