Canon Program Pro 1000 17" Printer: Initial Impressions

[sanyasi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

After much frustration with Epson printers, I switched to Canon, purchasing the Canon ImagePROGRAF Pro-1000 17-inch printer.  Here are my initial impressions after about a weekend of use.

 

The printer comes with its own print software, which is accessed as a Photoshop plug-in under the Automate menu (it also functions as a plug-in for LR).  I am impressed with the interface.  It is easy to use, but flexible.  I had some difficulty getting it to work because there is a trick that is not self-evident or well-documented.  When I called Canon support today, the support rep knew exactly what I needed to do, and it immediately began working.  Over the weekend, I was printing using the Photoshop interface.

 

The built-in screen on the printer for settings is far better than the ones on the Epson printers I had used in terms of the intuitiveness of the settings, prompts, and  labels.

 

The WIFI connection took a couple of goes to get working, but that always seems to be the case with WIFI (at least for me).  I love not having to dedicate a valuable USB port to a printer.

 

I still need tweak the calibration, but I am pretty much getting what shows up on my screen (I use Eizo self-calibrating monitors).  I have not done a print to print comparison, but soft proofing so far suggests that the Canon inks have a fairly wide color gamut because the soft proof does not reveal very much in the way of out of gamut colors.

 

I have seen different print quality settings in printers before.  I tried Canon's "highest" quality, which took about 35 to 45 minutes to print out a 13 by 19 inch print (with minimal margins).  I'll have to measure that more accurately--I didn't pay attention at the start because I had no idea printing would take so long.  I switched to "high" quality, and that still took somewhere around 25 to 30 minutes.  Since I am doing one copy per photo, I don't find the slow print speed to be problematic.  I should give normal a try, just to see.  Based on my experience this weekend, I would think print times at normal would be between 4 and 8 minutes.

 

As for print quality, so far just color.  The end result is superb, but each person needs to judge for themselves.

 

One feature that I am very pleased about.  The print head is treated as a disposable--I can buy a new head and replace the old one in seconds.  I found that the Epson heads clogged, and required a service call to replace at a price that was more than the cost of the printer.  I have heard that the Canon heads aren't cheap, but are still economical to replace if you need to. 

 

Finally, tech support was the best I ever experienced.  The tech gave me some pointers on the software, was very familiar with Hahnemuehle paper and had some suggestions for settings to assure good output.

 

I spent the last half of 2015 frustrated with my prints.  I am already thrilled.

 

That's one person's view.

 

 

[Jeff S]

Thanks.....a few questions, if you don't mind....

 

Any experience/comments with regard to the print feed options, notably with 'difficult' or thicker papers?  I've found some Hahnemuhle papers more problematic than others with the Epson 3800, admittedly an older machine.  How many feed options are there?

 

I'm also curious about the ink optimizer for color, as well as black inks for monochrome, to reduce metamerism and bronzing effects.  Have you compared any work that you've previously printed on the Epson, or run any color charts?  (Are you custom profiling?)

 

I'm not surprised that print times are longer with higher quality settings, but 35-45 minutes for a single 13x19 is extraordinarily long.  This is much longer than I've read about elsewhere.  Do the Canon reps confirm that this is typical?  Do you notice any significant difference in prints using different quality settings?

 

Michael Reichmann is supposed to do a comparison between this machine and the new Epson P800....that will be of interest as my 3800 is coming up on 7 years of regular use (thankfully without issue so far).  At some point, if I move to a new printer and the 3800 hasn't died, I'll likely dedicate the 3800 to b/w only Piezography, after a thorough flushing and tune.  A friend has done that, and the Cone inks run even better than the Epson inks for him, and the prints are superb, aided by the gloss optimizer.  He has since replaced even his Epson color inks, in another Epson machine,with the Cone color inks, resulting in significant savings.

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[zeitz]

Jeff, I'll be very interested in your experiences.  I had an iPF5200 pigment ink printer.  I love glossy prints.  The iPF5200 was awful for glossy and could kill the gloss on any paper, including Pictorico White Film.  What I miss most with the Canon dye ink printers, such as the Pro 9000 Mark II, is the Photoshop plug-in.  What a superb piece of software that is.

[sanyasi]

Jeff:

 

Once I get my current printing done, I'll do some test prints--comparing High to Highest.  I switched to High because given my current volume, Highest isn't practical.  The prints still look great, and I would say High generates a print in about 5 or 6 minutes.  When I do the test, I will use a timer.  

 

To answer one question:  I don't do custom profiles.  I rely on the manufacturer's icc profiles and a Solex light.  I find that the details that some like get in the way of the process for me.  It's just my opinion, but  even making basic but minor adjustments in ACR adds some fiction to the photograph.  As the tech support said at Canon, "If you like what you are getting, that's all that matters."

 

By way of further information, the first ink tanks to run out were photo black, gray, and chroma optimizer.  The warning signal went on about 10 prints ago, but the system readout is still showing about an 1/8th of a tank of ink.  It appears that the warning may be to give you time to reorder.  When the warning came on, I had printed about 20 13 by 19 prints.  I won't know about ink consumption for a few days.  I am assuming that the first set of cartridges get used quickly to prime the printer.  I always order a complete second set when I order a new printer.

[Jeff S]

Thanks....although still doesn't answer some questions....especially Canon vs Epson comparisons....feed mechanism(s), benefits of optimizer and blacks (metamerism or bronzing), etc. 

 

It's good to hear that the Canon is working well for you, but the real issue for me is the comparison and decision between Canon and Epson next time around (although apples to apples, I'd need to compare the latest models....P800 vs Pro 1000, etc).  For instance, it would be very helpful to hear about prints using the Canon based on images you've already printed on Epson....at least once your workflow settles in.

 

I agree that whatever makes you happy is all that matters.  For me, I've experimented enough with various profiles, settings, papers, lighting, etc, that I see real improvements in both my process and results over time....and sometimes it's the fine and subtle changes that make a print 'sing' or not.  And of course it's only over time that one can learn the quirks and tricks....and reliability....of any machine and how to best fit it into an overall workflow.  Good luck with yours.

 

Jeff

[sanyasi]

Here is some more info:

 

There are two feed mechanisms, which I found very confusing because there was not a good diagram in the box labeling all the printer's parts.  What is referred to as the rear slot, is actually at the back, but I would call it the top feeder.  The manual feeder is built into the back of the printer.  It looks like you do most of your printing using the rear feeder if you are using a gloss finish.  When I tried printing on matte paper, I was prompted to use the manual feeder.   There is no built-in roll feeder, but I seem to recall you could buy an attachment.  I don't use roll paper.  There is no tray for multiple sheets, but with the Epson 4900, i was instructed not to use the tray with Baryta, which is 99% of what I print with, so I was doing one print at a time.

 

I printed about 15  13 by 19 prints while the prompt said ink was low.  And then I got an out of ink message, and I couldn't print until I changed the cartridges.  Unfortunately, 3 cartridges were reading as low on ink, so it is hard to tell which one caused the printer to stop printing.  The ink is in a gray plastic container, so you can't see if there is anything is left.  it also looked liked the cartridges were designed to prevent manual refills, but that is just an impression.  The more crafty out there probably can figure out how to do it.  In any event, I shook each cartridge several times, and they all felt very empty.

 

I am going to call Canon back toward the end of the week--their tech support was that good.  I will pass your questions along.  Like you, i will be waiting for the Luminous Landscape review/comparison.  They will take a far more technical approach than I have.  In general, I think the photographic community reviewers do all of us a disservice by focusing so much on bodies and lenses.  For me, it isn't a worthy photograph and the process is not complete until I have a print.  Having said that, I wasn't going to buy an Epson again if I could help it given my experience.

 

All I can say is that so far, the colors really are vivid without being offensive.  I am happy.

 

I will eventually get the Canon/Epson comparison because I have to print a duplicate sets of prints that I have already printed with the Epson.  Just give me some time to catch up.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks for the follow-up.  Regarding ink levels, I would expect that the print utility software would allow you to look more closely at ink levels for each cartridge separately.....on the printer display and/or on your computer....I'd be very surprised if not.

 

I hope the low inks indicate that you've been printing a lot, as the printer is supposed to come with a full set, not a starter set like some machines.

 

Feed options are key for me.....I hope when you say the manual feed is at the back of the machine, you mean at the top rear and not literally from behind the machine; that would require the printer to be well away from any wall, a deal breaker for me.

 

Jeff

[sanyasi]

Update:

 

I have finished my current printing project.  While not an exact measurement, by my count, I have printed 94 or so 13" by 19" prints and three 17" by 22" inch prints.  I would say at least 80% of the prints are largely full page--I leave a small border around 1/3 to 1/2 inch, but some photos are printed as squares and panoramas, which leaves more white space.  For those that want to do a comparison with other printers, the cartridge size is 80.0 ml.

 

Ink Usage:  So far I replaced the ink cartridges for photo black, gray, and chroma optimizer once.  Currently the photo black is showing slightly over 50% full, with the optimizer at about 80% and the gray at 75%.  Interestingly the Matt Black is showing that it is running out, but I have only printed 5 or 6 photos on matte paper, so I am not sure what is going on there.  All the other cartridges are at about 25% to 33%f full (and as noted, have not been replaced yet).  I asked Canon about the readout.  It is a visual readout, with no actual percentages.  The Canon tech said they are about to issue a software utility that will track the cost of a print and other ink details, so maybe that will provide more precision.  She indicated that the new software would be out sometime within a month or so.

 

The printer does come with a set of regular cartridges--not a starter set.

 

I asked tech support whether Highest Quality uses more ink than High Quality.  The tech was not all that clear.  She indicated it uses more, but not nearly as much as you might think given the difference in printing times.  The new software, when issued, might give a better idea of just how much more.

 

Feeder:  The rear (main) feeder is flawless.  With the Epson 4900, I would often have to reload a sheet five or six times before the printer would be feed.  My Epson 3880 did much better when it came to loading the paper, but I got my share of off-center, skewed prints.  With the Canon, you put the sheet in the paper feeder. It doesn't seem to need to be flush.  You do not need to insert it into the rollers.  It just works.  Every print I made was perfectly centered.  Canon states that it is using a vacuum system, but there are some visible rollers.

 

Jeff asked about the back (as opposed to what is referred to the as the rear feeder).  The back feeder appears to be for thicker media, which I don't use.  It does not take the paper in horizontally, so you don't need to leave lots of extra room in back of the printer.  It opens from the back, and the paper is fed in vertically--almost like top loading, although with larger sheets of paper, you do need to have a little room because the paper "holder" extends upwards and angles back as you extend it up.

 

Software:  I have had some trouble with the software.  Specifically, some of the dropdown boxes flash, but do not open when you click on the box.  This happened with the layout dropdown.  I set it to print two photographs on one page using a supplied template.  I couldn't reset the template to a single photo using the dropdown.  Technical support indicated that they were aware of and working on the issue.  I solved it by starting my Mac in safe mode.  Until Canon fixes the problem, I will be printing a single photo per page--not too big of a problem given my typical workflow.  Otherwise the software is a pleasure to work with.  It is very intuitive.  You have three tabs--one for color management and size, one for layout, and one that permits you to make brightness, contrast, and color adjustments on the fly.

 

​Print Time:  I printed at Highest Quality and timed one print (full size on 13 by 19 paper).  42 minutes.  High quality is somewhere around 6 minutes per print.  I have started looking at the difference in prints with a magnifying glass.  The difference was most noticeable to me in looking at illuminated text on signage.  Highest Quality was much better.  Over the weekend I will be taking a more thorough look.

 

Random Blotches:  I like a clean print.  Occasionally with the Epson printers you would get some extra ink at the corners--very noticeable to me because I use a white border.  I was initially concerned with the Canon because I saw minor traces on some of the prints during the first 15 or so prints, but those seem to have disappeared, which makes me happy.

 

Rolled Paper Accessory:  In one of my earlier posts, I refer to the possibility of a an optional accessory for paper rolls.  Apparently there is no accessory.  It is possible I read that about the new Epson 17" printer.  If rolled paper is important to you, ask your dealer whether there is an accessory.

 

Metamerism and Bronzing.  I checked one or two prints for bronzing.  Didn't see any, but I suspect Jeff is more sensitive to that than I am because it isn't something that I have worried about.  Metamerism is something I have heard of, but also had not given much thought to.  As I understand it, it involves color shifts when the print is viewed under different light sources.  Again, over the weekend I will take a closer look.

 

Overall:  The prints are excellent.  I have no complaints.  This batch of prints I made had a lot more color than I normally print--I do lots of monochrome.  Because these photographs were shot in Asia, there are lots of reds and oranges.  I simply can't complain with what I got.  

 

Overall, I think what you are getting is a highly professional desktop printer that is not the same weight or size at the Epson 4900, but that produces prints of equal of better quality.  Canon has achieved this by doing away with the roll paper option and a paper tray.  As an enthusiast, as opposed to a professional printer, I don't feel that I am making a compromise by using this printer, but if I were a print shop I would probably opt for something else because I don't think this is a workhorse, high volume printer, and I don't think Canon intended it to be.

 

Disclosure:  As far as I know, I have no financial interest in or relationship with Canon (I might own it in an ETF).  I decided to post these thoughts because printers strike me as one of the least reviewed types of photographic equipment. My comments represent my experience.  Yours may be different.  If you are looking for a more formal review, this month's issue of Shutterbug has one.  At the end of the day, their conclusions are similar to mine.  This is a professional printer that produces excellent prints.

[Jeff S]

A few thoughts about Epson comparisons...  

 

The new SureColor P600 (13") and P800 (17") both offer roll paper feed as options, unlike their predecessors (R3000 and 3880, respectively).   

 

As the name SureColor implies, the ink set is entirely new, so any comparisons to current Canon printers are not apples to apples.  The blacks especially are said to have improved greatly, as has ink longevity (I'm awaiting 3rd party tests...Wilhelm or similar). 

 

The 4900 has had known clogging issues and, so far, it's one of the only Epson machines I'm aware of that doesn't yet have a new SureColor replacement.  The 4900 does have 2 additional ink colors (green and orange, I think) that aren't in the smaller printers....and it has 200ml cartridges, compared to 80ml in the 3880.  The Canon Pro 1000 is a competitor to the new P800, not to the 4900 (or its yet to be announced SureColor replacement, which I'm sure will have improvements).

 

I have the 3800, the predecessor to the 3880 (and now P800).   One of the nice aspects of this machine is 3 feed options.  I avoided all the problems Jack cites above regarding skewing and blotching by using the front feed option when appropriate.  While intended for thicker media, it handles all papers well by feeding the paper completely flat from front to back and back again (avoiding head strikes that can cause edge problems), with the opportunity to control (as with the other 2 feeds) the platen gap and other settings.  (Printing close to the paper edge is prone to create edge bleeding, which is one reason I don't like to do it; another is that I like to leave plenty of room to cut my own window mats for framing.)

 

The Epson print utility provides detailed info on ink supply levels.  I mentioned here or in another thread recently that Jon Cone, who supplies 3rd party inks for Epson machines (including his well known Piezography for b/w), that when Epson cartridges are empty, there is still a fair amount of ink left (I think up to 15-20%)....a point he uses to market his continuous ink system that doesn't waste any ink.  I have no idea if the situation with Canon machines is similar (and I've never opened an 'empty' Epson cartridge to check....life's too short).

 

Note also that In addition to direct printer setting options (of which there are many), Lightroom also provides options in its print module for finer quality if desired.

 

There are some sites that do provide thorough reviews on printers, e.g., Northlight Images, which has recently done some nice reviews on both the P600 and P800.  I suspect they'll be doing the same for the new Canon, as will LuLa and the other usual suspects.

 

Jeff

Edited January 9, 2016 by Jeff S

[zeitz]

Jeff, please comment on metamerism and bronzing.  Do you print glossy?

[Jeff S]

I typically print using gloss/semi-gloss papers, similar to those I used in darkroom days (often mimicked these days with a baryta layer).  The papers I choose do, however, vary greatly in both texture and color (cool to warm).  

 

It would be dangerous for me to give you technical definitions for either term, or get into the differences between metamerism vs metameric failure, bronzing, gloss differential, etc.  There are many texts, and many online articles, that do that, with some showing examples.  Suffice to say that each generally relates to effects of changing light (and viewing angle) on colors (metamerism) or black inks (typically associated with bronzing...where the ink appears, well, bronze from certain angles).  

 

Ink manufacturers have worked hard to minimize bad effects (metamerism is a fact of life, and some effects are beneficial) and bronzing.....with the net result that prints retain the intended colors and reflective properties when displayed under different lighting and viewing conditions.  Gloss optimizers also help when different amounts of ink/color are deposited in different areas of the print to add more uniform reflectivity.

 

You might want to search these terms to find some visual examples....these will provide more understanding than I can convey with a lot of words, which could become boringly academic...and subject to much debate.

 

Jeff

Edited January 9, 2016 by Jeff S

[zeitz]

I find dye ink printers do not display any of these bad properties.  The pigment ink printers I've seen, which are older models, are awful.  Are the new pigment ink printers any better?

[LocalHero1953]

I find dye ink printers do not display any of these bad properties.  The pigment ink printers I've seen, which are older models, are awful.  Are the new pigment ink printers any better?

I think you'll find that dye ink printers are the cheaper end of the market. They produce great looking prints, that fade on the wall over the years (>3 years or so IME).  Pigment ink prints should not fade. 

[Bundestrainer]

Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts with us. Really appreciate it.

 

As for the few matte prints you made, are you happy with the result? Some people say that Canon printers seem to be better for glossy images, whereas Epson is said to be the winner as far as matte prints are concerned. I don't know if this is true but as I'm more into matte printing I'd like to hear your opinion. Really would like to make this Canon printer work for me.

 

Thank you again.

[zeitz]

I'm not worried about price or durability.  Can the new pigment printers make true glossy prints?

[Jeff S]

What would a 'false' glossy print look like?  The printer is but one part of the equation....inks vary by manufacturer, and even by model....papers vary by manufacturer, and by type....display and lighting conditions can vary in myriad ways (glass type and specs, etc).....and most of all, user choices, preferences, techniques and workflow can significantly affect print results.  

 

Equipment and supplies haven't been a limitation for a long time....no different than cameras.  It's one reason why inkjet printers have only shown marginal improvements in recent years....how much better can it get?  

 

Jeff

[sanyasi]

Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts with us. Really appreciate it.

 

As for the few matte prints you made, are you happy with the result? Some people say that Canon printers seem to be better for glossy images, whereas Epson is said to be the winner as far as matte prints are concerned. I don't know if this is true but as I'm more into matte printing I'd like to hear your opinion. Really would like to make this Canon printer work for me.

 

Thank you again.

 

 I am reluctant to answer because I do so little matte printing.  Basically, I bought a box of Hanemuehle Photo Rag paper a couple of years ago, and every once and awhile I print a matte print.  I find matte paper to have what strike me as contradictory properties, at least to my eye.  On the one hand, when I soft proof it, it looks like someone placed a gray film over the paper--contrast  disappears.  On the other, the blacks become too black in the sense that shadow detail disappears.  What I have noticed is that in order to get anything close to what I find pleasing, the photo has to be high key, or at least not have a lot of pure black.  When I have used matte paper, I have only used it for monochrome prints--no color.  I bought a box of rice paper and had the same problem with it.  

 

To be specific, the one photo I liked that I printed on matte with the Canon Pro-1000 was of a limestone statue in a courtyard, with a gate and trees behind it.  I printed in black and white first.  The statue and gate looked great, but the position of the tree and the tone of the bark created a problem with the print.  I reprinted it in color on Baryta, and the photo was much better, but had the tree bark not created a problem, I would have liked the matte print very much.

 

Over the last five years,  I have settled into a comfortable rut.  I use Hahnemuhle FineArt Baryta 325 gsm 99% of the time.  I tried an Illiford or Moab metallic, which I hated.  I also don't like high gloss papers.

 

In your case, this is a piece of equipment where having a dealer (rather than mail order) might be helpful.  I would suggest taking a box of your favorite paper to the dealer and actually printing a few samples of your favorite photographs so that you can see.

 

Just to repeat from an earlier post:  I am not trying to sell Canon printers.  I just had such a lousy year last year fighting printers, and for me, the Canon Pro-1000 addresses a lot of the specific issues I had, including feeding paper, blotching, erratic color reproduction, and skewing.  And the prints look great.

[sanyasi]

Because we are talking prints, I thought I should point out an excellent article on the Luminous Landscape website by Dan Steinhart who is a well-known photographer and who is now associated with Epson as their marketing manager.  The article is simply a dictionary of fine art and printing terms that must include at least 100 terms.  The definitions are short and to the point.  I started to look at it for definitions of bronzing and metamerism, but found myself reading the dictionary from start to finish.   Steinhart includes some nice photographs.

 

https://luminous-landscape.com/danos-glossary-of-fine-art-related-terms/

 

For those who don't know, Luminous Landscape recently switched to a paid subscription, but the fee is $12 a year, so it it not going to break the bank.

[Bundestrainer]

 I am reluctant to answer because I do so little matte printing.  Basically, I bought a box of Hanemuehle Photo Rag paper a couple of years ago, and every once and awhile I print a matte print.  I find matte paper to have what strike me as contradictory properties, at least to my eye.  On the one hand, when I soft proof it, it looks like someone placed a gray film over the paper--contrast  disappears.  On the other, the blacks become too black in the sense that shadow detail disappears.  What I have noticed is that in order to get anything close to what I find pleasing, the photo has to be high key, or at least not have a lot of pure black.  When I have used matte paper, I have only used it for monochrome prints--no color.  I bought a box of rice paper and had the same problem with it.  

 

To be specific, the one photo I liked that I printed on matte with the Canon Pro-1000 was of a limestone statue in a courtyard, with a gate and trees behind it.  I printed in black and white first.  The statue and gate looked great, but the position of the tree and the tone of the bark created a problem with the print.  I reprinted it in color on Baryta, and the photo was much better, but had the tree bark not created a problem, I would have liked the matte print very much.

 

Over the last five years,  I have settled into a comfortable rut.  I use Hahnemuhle FineArt Baryta 325 gsm 99% of the time.  I tried an Illiford or Moab metallic, which I hated.  I also don't like high gloss papers.

 

In your case, this is a piece of equipment where having a dealer (rather than mail order) might be helpful.  I would suggest taking a box of your favorite paper to the dealer and actually printing a few samples of your favorite photographs so that you can see.

 

Just to repeat from an earlier post:  I am not trying to sell Canon printers.  I just had such a lousy year last year fighting printers, and for me, the Canon Pro-1000 addresses a lot of the specific issues I had, including feeding paper, blotching, erratic color reproduction, and skewing.  And the prints look great.

 

Thank you so much for your answer. It's fair enough not to judge your matte prints if you do so little. I appreciate the time you invested to respond. I guess I will try to find a dealer once the Canon Pro 1000 is available in Europe, which isn't supposed to be before February.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[LocalHero1953]

I also had problems of blotching and edge stains with my Epson R3000, which I traced to the waste ink "well" and foam strip beneath the print head. This seems to be a major design flaw with (some?) Epson printers, which I hope I have solved with a third party plumbed-in waste ink tank - we shall see.

How does Canon deal with the same issue? Or does Canon allow gloss and matte black to be used in parallel without a changeover purge routine?