Firmware: Canon ImagePROGRAF Pro-1000 v1.1

[Canon Rumors]

<p>Canon has released an firmware update for the ImagePROGRAF Pro-1000 printer, this brings the firmware to version 1.1</p>
<p><strong>Firmware v1.1:</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>The maximum printable height of custom paper size will be lengthened to 25.5-inch (647.70mm) with specifying in the printer driver.</p></blockquote>
<p>This still may not be enough for some people, you can read more about this from this <a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/printer/review-canon_pro-1000.html">intensive review over at Northlight</a>.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[leethecam]

I think Canon are missing the important issue with this printer. This firmware update is the least of their concerns.

I defected from Epson to this printer because it offered better paper handling and easy matte / gloss changes.

What I didn't figure on though was the apauling quality when printing images with large areas of black.

Canons' semigloss paper was great
Permajet Oyster was great.
Nearly everything else I tried was horrible with visible lines where the head had tracked across the paper.

I had profiles custom made, I tried different paper settings, I tried increasing print times, I tried changing how the chroma optimiser was applied...

After using up much of the ink supplied I finally gave up and went back to Epson. (Horrible paper handling with some papers and costs me every time I change to matte and back - but darn, the prints are pretty...)

Pity because this printer promised so much and I truly wanted to love it. (Images without lots of black were lovely, and if I only wanted to print on Oyster then yey...!)

When I contacted Canon I was met only by feeble attempts at help from a help team who'd never actually seen the printer. Epson are frustrating, but at least their guys know about the printer when you phone.

 

[keithcooper]

I think Canon are missing the important issue with this printer. This firmware update is the least of their concerns.

I defected from Epson to this printer because it offered better paper handling and easy matte / gloss changes.

What I didn't figure on though was the apauling quality when printing images with large areas of black.

Canons' semigloss paper was great
Permajet Oyster was great.
Nearly everything else I tried was horrible with visible lines where the head had tracked across the paper.

I had profiles custom made, I tried different paper settings, I tried increasing print times, I tried changing how the chroma optimiser was applied...

After using up much of the ink supplied I finally gave up and went back to Epson. (Horrible paper handling with some papers and costs me every time I change to matte and back - but darn, the prints are pretty...)

Pity because this printer promised so much and I truly wanted to love it. (Images without lots of black were lovely, and if I only wanted to print on Oyster then yey...!)

When I contacted Canon I was met only by feeble attempts at help from a help team who'd never actually seen the printer. Epson are frustrating, but at least their guys know about the printer when you phone.

Sorry to hear that - it completely goes against the experiences I had during my time with the PRO-1000 printer. I'd note that I've also reviewed the P800 so have plenty of prints to compare (I'd be happy with either for my work).

It's not much help to know you had a duff printer, but a working one prints deep blacks on a wide range of papers.

 

[JonAustin]

@ leethecam: Sorry to read about your appalling experience. I would have exchanged the unit for a replacement during the vendor's return period; if that period had elapsed, I would have at least asked Canon for a replacement print head.

I don't print very much in-studio, and I know that everyone has his own favorite print stock, but I've found it simplifies my life greatly to just use OEM inks and photo papers with any printer I buy. Certainly, every manufacturer designs their papers, inks and printers to work together for optimum results.

I realize that the actual production of inks and papers is outsourced to other companies who manufacture to the OEM's specifications, and that some third-party papers are very similar to the OEM's, but finding third-party papers that work well, and going through the trial-and-error of custom profiles is more headaches than I need.

 

[leethecam]

I always use OEM inks - not worth traying anything else.

Paper stock is a very individual thing and I've got 3 or 4 favourites depending on gloss / matte / fine art / cheaper prints.

It can take all eternity to find the right paper and I have to persuade paper suppliers for free samples or else those sample packs can add to up to many £££.

The thing that drives me mad is getting profiles for each paper. To properly evaluate each I need to get a profile made up and then test. I have a couple of great images that show up issues or character.

Even when I've got a profile (professionally) done it can often require a little editing. Fortunately I've got an old icc profile editor.

Prints now are looking great - after going through the whole process all over again... grrr...