Canon Pro-1 Question

[marcel]

I have a pixma pro 9500 mk l since 2007. Never worked well in Mac or Win until canon published a new version of the plugin in 2012. Now is fantastic! The printer must always be used with the Easy Photo Print Pro plugin in Phtoshop or Canon software: Printer Manages Colors in Photoshop. The problem is that if Photoshop Manages Color plugins are duplicated.This was my problem. Or i save a Tiff from Photoshop and when i open it in Digital Photo Professional i can select the paper profile in the plugin. With new cartridges can print 250 sheets of fine art A3 + . Now i have also an HP Z3200 44".
I work for artists and art gallery in Milano, Italy.

 

[gbchriste]

Without a doubt, Jeff Schewe's THE DIGITAL PRINT, leads to top notch results. It changed my whole understanding (or, should I say, confusion?!?).

Once you get a basic work flow, and you have a reasonably calibrated monitor, things just fall into place.

At least that is the case with the Epson 3880. I had a Pixma Pro 9000II which was just insane with constantly indicating low ink, plus took MUCH more work soft proofing to get rid of color casts and bring back the contrast. I rarely use the term, "it sucked," but that is how I feel about that Pixma.

Reading Schewe's book and then getting the Epson has me loving, loving, loving the whole printing process on both mat and glossy media.

Just got this book yesterday and it's sitting open in front of me on my desk right now.

I recalibrated yesterday using the Spyder3 Pro puck and native Spyder3 Pro software in stead of the ColorEyes software. I had ColorEyes because it was the only one that seemed to be able to handle the iMac display brightness on my previous 24" aluminum iMac.

But in the current context on the new machine I found the Spyder software provided a much better profile as far as display brightness goes. I've now got the screen/print brightness issue pretty much under control and overall print tonality and contrast is very, very close to the on-screen soft proof. Especially gratifying to see very subtle shadow details hovering in the range of 8,8,8 (RGB) on screen being preserved and visible in the print.

I'm now finding though that some of my prints are a bit warmer than my display. Of course that has a lot to do with viewing environment and I don't have a proper daylight balanced viewing station by which to judge the print and my house has a lot of tungsten light in it.

I'm scouring my way through Digital Print and thinking about upgrading my calibration package to either the Spyder4 or i1 Display Pro.

 

[LDS]

The problem is that if Photoshop Manages Color plugins are duplicated.

If you let Photoshop (or Lightroom or whatever) manage colors, you have to disable color management in the printer driver. Then is a matter of preference if you prefer Adobe ACE (or any other application internal color management engine) or Windows ICM/OSX ColorSync.

 

[YuengLinger]

At least that is the case with the Epson 3880. I had a Pixma Pro 9000II

Well, you switched from a $400 printer to a $1000+ one, I really hope you got something tangible in exchange - although it is true not always higher price means better quality.

Anyway an A2 printer may be too large and heavy unless you really need it - the Pixma Pro are already expensive, large and heavy enough for most (and maybe less demanding) "non professional" users.

The Pixma Pro reviews, including those on Northlight Images, are positive... anyway when someone asks something just telling him he bough the wrong product and switch is not that helpful, especially if what he bought is not that bad. It's like writing "got bad images with you Canon camera? Get a Nikon or a Sony! It works for me".

You can still buy the wrong product for your needs or expectations - but you really need to assess it is - and not just there's something wrong in the workflow leading to results below what could be really achieved.

I understand your suggestion here, about sticking to a brand or model when somebody asks a question about using a particular device. My answer is sincere, and I believe it contributes to the conversation. I chimed in a bit late, after many other had addressed the specific printer. In other words, the question had been answered specifically quite well, and I was joining the conversation by sharing my experience.

First, the OP has been having problems for a year with his printer. I know the frustration of spending on ink and getting no better results, and then spending more on ink. And though I switched from a "$400" printer to one that cost me $825 after rebates, still, $400 is a high price for a printer that took so much work to massage a decent print out of, and then guzzled ink at an insane rate. (But, in fact, my Pixma came as a bundle three years ago with a 60D, effectively free after the rebates. Canon made money from my ink purchases!)

I shouldn't have to point out that the OP is not the only person reading a thread. Others have the same questions, including many who are trying to decide on a printer. So, I'm being helpful to those who are searching for info on various printers.

When it comes to printers, we aren't "trapped" in a brand by a bag full of lenses and flashes. It is MUCH easier to finish up a set of inks and move on, either to another of the same brand or a different brand. Sticking with a printer that isn't performing becomes very expensive because it consumes ink.

I'm fully committed to Canon for capturing images. And I use Canon's DPP to cull my RAW's. And I have a Canon scanner. When it comes to printers, friends who contribute work to the local fine arts club and a nationally respected university museum, and who also do well in state print contests happen to prefer Epson, which is why I was willing to invest in one.

Furthermore, the Epson I use, the 3880, costs significantly less per print because of the lower per-ml priced, higher capacity ink cartridges.

I've discovered the joy of printing, thanks to this printer, the help of friends, the Schewe book I mentioned, and a lot of good websites, including Keith Cooper's.

Does this help the OP tonight? Doubtful. But he/she is not stuck with a brand, and if results don't get better, there are other options than giving up on printing altogether.

 

[LDS]

I understand your suggestion here, about sticking to a brand or model when somebody asks a question about using a particular device.

What I meant is trying to understand first if there is something wrong in the use of a given device, and help to achieve the best results. Then, and only then, if those results are not yet up to someone expectations, suggest which other devices could lead to better ones.

Because if there are some mistakes in the process, no amount of money you can throw at the problem usually solve it - if not maybe by pure chance. But without the right understanding, it can surface again with any little change in the process, and again if the solution is unknown, it can't be solved.

First, the OP has been having problems for a year with his printer. I know the frustration of spending on ink and getting no better results, and then spending more on ink.

Yeah, I know too. I believe your suggestion about "Jeff Schewe's THE DIGITAL PRINT" was very important, because you lead to something that can tell a lot about the printing process regardless of the printer you're using.

Sure, following that book won't turn a consumer printer into an high-end one, yet you'll understand why, and you'll be able to exploit fully whatever your budget permits, and not just waste money on a more expensive model and still get subpar results because you really didn't grap the required technique to obtain good results.

Otherwise, if someone says "my camera always give too dark images", do you tell him to check exposure, or you suggest to change camera?

I shouldn't have to point out that the OP is not the only person reading a thread. Others have the same questions, including many who are trying to decide on a printer. So, I'm being helpful to those who are searching for info on various printers.

Yes, but this way it could be a little misleading. If we were to perform a comparison between the Pro-1 and the 3880 we should ensure that both are properly used and deliver the best results. I'm sure that whatever printer I use, and whatever printer Keith Cooper use, his prints will be far better than mine Would you suggest someone else what printer to use using such kind of comparisons? Does the 3880 always prints better than the Pro-1? Maybe, but it needs to be a fair comparison.

When it comes to printers, we aren't "trapped" in a brand by a bag full of lenses and flashes. It is MUCH easier to finish up a set of inks and move on, either to another of the same brand or a different brand. Sticking with a printer that isn't performing becomes very expensive because it consumes ink.

Sure, but like cameras, the best device is not the latest and more expensive, but the one you know better and can exploit fully. As I said, it could be true you got the wrong device for the expected result, and just need another. But unless you are sure you're using it the correct way to achieve the best results, and still it's not what you wish, you just risk an endless chase of "the best one" wasting money and money because none will give you what you want, if there is some basic failure in the process. Good for sellers, not so good for your pocket and very frustrating - while maybe buying a $35 book - as you suggested - and/or reading Cooper's site could be the real solution. Then feel free to jump from printer to printer until you're fully satisifed with the results - you'll know how to get there.

I'm not trying to defend the Pro-1 - I was just pointing out it's after all a good printer, and maybe the reported issues were not in the printer itself, but maybe in some other steps. Everybody had its issues with one brand or another, and his own preferred ones. Yet, I learnt there's more value in discussing issues regardless of a given brand, than simply saying "oh yes, I used X too, but it was crap and now I'm very happy with Y" - unless you can give a factual proof that X was really crap.