Digital BW, The Print

Hi Group,

I've only had this Canon IPF5000 for a couple of weeks, but I have to
admit I'm getting more and more enthused about it. The Canon replaced
my last Epson 4000. I've had three 4000's.. all have been problematic
and the last one had the print head die in the middle of printing a
show and the unit was only 8 mo old !! That was the last straw, so OUT
with the Epson, IN with the Canon. So far it looks like a keeper. The
dot size is a little larger than the Epson 2400 K3 output when viewed
under magnification, so the prints have a little more visible
grain. The prints appear to reproduce the file very accurately
assuming color managed workflow and good profiles. Images have good
sharpness and snap.  The 16 bit Photoshop plug-in looks good (once you
find out it exists - Canon's documentation is clearly in need of
serious revision).

My bottom line impressions: 

Pros: 
- Very good color gamut. 
- Faster than epson 4800. 
- Archival pigments. 
- B&W is looking very good on glossy and satin (haven't gotten around
to testing matte/cotton papers yet), nice 21 step wedge, no
metamerism, etc. Very similar to K3 B&W output in neutrality and
flexible settings/tones.  Not sure what would be gained by a RIP, but
have to admit, I will miss using QTR (hopefully will be supported
eventually by Roy).
- Bronzing on Kirkland glossy seems to be somewhere between UC and K3
inksets (I'm using a 2400 for my K3 comparisons).  I don't find it
bothersome.
- No evidence of any banding issues. 
- Very good print quality, even with larger dot size. 
- 12 color inkset does appear to help blues and greens (wider gamut ?).
- Appears to be MORE IMMUNE TO NOZZLE CLOGS, etc. than Epson (a HUGE
plus for me in Santa Fe, NM with low humidity).
- Early reports suggest that ink costs long term are not any more than
Epson (possibly less, and a lot less at my location if nozzle clogging
is reduced).
- Rear slot paper feed is less hassle than Epson (once you know the
trick of disabling the "paper askew" check).
- Do NOT have to change black inks when switching between matte and
photo papers. 
- Capable of using true 12-bit color data from 16 bit files (with
plugin). 

Cons: 
- Roll paper adapter optional. 
- User interface and documentation needs work. 
- Canon support to pro community with these new printers is still
somewhat of an unknown.
- Inkset expensive initially, but long term probably NOT an issue.

I'm still in testing mode, but this new model looks like it will be a
keeper.  My printing stress levels have dropped dramatically as I'm
NOT having to worry about nozzle clogs, clearing air in the lines, and
wasting $$$ of pricey ink.  I do miss QTR, as I'm not that experienced
in the Canon B&W workflow yet, but I'm working on it.

Cheers,

Tony Bonanno

Tony, re: your comment about "clearing air in lines" ...sounds like 
you were using something other than Epson OEM pigments in your 4000s?
If so, clogs and head problems would be expected.

I'll be interested to hear your further adventures with that Canon
because it sounds good in other reports and 4800 isn't tempting. 


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Bonanno"
<tony.groups@...> wrote:

>
> Hi Group,
> 
> I've only had this Canon IPF5000 for a couple of weeks, but I have to
> admit I'm getting more and more enthused about it. The Canon replaced
> my last Epson 4000. I've had three 4000's.. all have been problematic
> and the last one had the print head die in the middle of printing a
> show and the unit was only 8 mo old !! That was the last straw, so OUT
> with the Epson, IN with the Canon. So far it looks like a keeper. The
> dot size is a little larger than the Epson 2400 K3 output when viewed
> under magnification, so the prints have a little more visible
> grain.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "djon43"
<djon43@...> wrote:
>
> 
> Tony, re: your comment about "clearing air in lines" ...sounds like 
> you were using something other than Epson OEM pigments in your 4000s?
> If so, clogs and head problems would be expected.
> 
> I'll be interested to hear your further adventures with that Canon
> because it sounds good in other reports and 4800 isn't tempting. 
> 
 
Acutally never used anything but Ultrachrome OEM inks in this one. 
For some reason (maybe hundidity/dryness/elevation ??), when the
nozzles clog, occasionally, it appears that air is sucked into the
lines.. doesn't happen all the time of course, but when it does, it is
a major exercise to get things back to normal (LOTS of cleaning
cycles).  Was a problem with all three of the Epson 4000s I've had.

Regarding the Canon, haven't experienced any nozzle issues yet, but
did have to do one realignment.  The interesting thing with the Canon
is that the need for head alignment isn't readily apparent unless you
are keeping a close eye on the output.  With my Epsons, alignment
problems would usually reveal themselves with some degree of banding.
 With the Canon, there is no evidence of banding, but rather a
"softening" of the detail, lack of sharpness.  When this first
occurred on an extensive multi-hour test session, I couldn't figure
out what the problem was at first.  A quick alignment and everything
was sharp as a tack again.

Surprisingly, I'm finding it easier to get the B&W results I want
using the standard driver and print profiles rather than the feature
rich 16 bit plugin.  Not sure why this is the case, still testing.  I
obtained some dynamite B&W with Entrada Bright 300 and Innova
Fiba-Print Glossy Type F .. was absolutely gorgeous.  The downside is
there are no specific profiles for these papers with the Canon.  I
found through trial and error that some of the Canon profiles worked
well, even though they were not specific to my paper.  The worst thing
about this printer is the fact that it is not an Epson as far as
support and user based experience :-) !

Cheers,

Tony

Does this Canon printer with all those heads seem easier to align or
more difficult than say the Ep 4000.

I've always thought the Epson software for head alignement to be
rather unprecise.

John





Regarding the Canon, haven't experienced any nozzle issues yet, but
did have to do one realignment. The interesting thing with the Canon
is that the need for head alignment isn't readily apparent unless you
are keeping a close eye on the output. With my Epsons, alignment
problems would usually reveal themselves with some degree of banding.
With the Canon, there is no evidence of banding, but rather a
"softening" of the detail, lack of sharpness. When this first
occurred on an extensive multi-hour test session, I couldn't figure
out what the problem was at first. A quick alignment and everything
was sharp as a tack again.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean"
<deanwork2003@...> wrote:
>
> Does this Canon printer with all those heads seem easier to align or
> more difficult than say the Ep 4000.
> 
> I've always thought the Epson software for head alignement to be
> rather unprecise.
> 
> John
> 
Good question John.  I haven't had a chance to try the "manual"
alignment routine on the printer.  There are two automatic modes,
basic and advanced.  I did the advanced alignment routine which was
totally automatic.  I think it ran through about four sheets of paper
and the little colored lasers on the printheads put on a show.  It
appeared to lay down patterns and then backup to "read" them and then
went on to the next set of patterns. Took a few minutes. After it was
done, the output was very sharp and there is no evidence of any
streaks, banding, etc.  I think the technology is probably different
than the Epson printhead and I'm assuming it is reasonably precise,
but time will tell how well things stay aligned, etc.

Tony