Review: Canon ImagePROGRAF Pro-1000

[Canon Rumors]

Keith over at Northlight has completed his exhaustive review of the Canon ImagePROGRAF Pro-1000 17″ printer. This is a printer I am personally considering, along with the offerings from Epson.</p>
<p>From Northlight:</p>
<blockquote><p>The images I produced on the range of papers look great, both colour and B&W – I took the chance to print out much of my architectural and commercial portfolio images at A3+ size, where the general vibrance and colour quality is something I’m happy to use to promote aspects of my photography business.</p>
<p>The new ink set, with the gloss coat pushes the depth and intensity of prints to levels where it’s definitely the skill of the photographer that’s more likely to limit the quality of the print. If your images are great, then your prints can match them. <a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/printer/review-canon_pro-1000.html">Read the full review</a></p></blockquote>
<p>It looks like Canon has improved a lot of the weaknesses with the Pro-1, a printer I used to own and never loved.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[LovePhotography]

Keith over at Northlight has completed his exhaustive review of the Canon ImagePROGRAF Pro-1000 17″ printer. This is a printer I am personally considering, along with the offerings from Epson.</p>
<p>From Northlight:</p>
<blockquote><p>The images I produced on the range of papers look great, both colour and B&W – I took the chance to print out much of my architectural and commercial portfolio images at A3+ size, where the general vibrance and colour quality is something I’m happy to use to promote aspects of my photography business.</p>
<p>The new ink set, with the gloss coat pushes the depth and intensity of prints to levels where it’s definitely the skill of the photographer that’s more likely to limit the quality of the print. If your images are great, then your prints can match them. <a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/printer/review-canon_pro-1000.html">Read the full review</a></p></blockquote>
<p>It looks like Canon has improved a lot of the weaknesses with the Pro-1, a printer I used to own and never loved.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

Well, crud. I just bought a Pro-1 6 months ago when there was the big rebate, and now I see you never liked it. (
Is it really that bad??? (I haven't had time to set it up yet).

 

[LDS]

Well, crud. I just bought a Pro-1 6 months ago when there was the big rebate, and now I see you never liked it. (
Is it really that bad??? (I haven't had time to set it up yet).

Just read Keith's review on the same site to get an idea of it...

 

[Eldar]

I have used the Pro-1 since it came out and I have been very happy with it. Especially B&W prints look great, but I was also happy with colour prints (I primarily use Canson Baryta, 310g paper). In periods it has been left unused, but I have never had any problems with clogging, like I used to have with Epson. So, LovePhotography, I would not worry. You´ll be happy with the Pro-1.

However, a few weeks back I got the ImagePROGRAF Pro-1000 and both colour and B&W prints are simply stunning. It took about an hour from I opened the box until it was hooked up, all setup procedures properly run, ICC profiles loaded and the first print came out. I had to increase brightness in Lightroom to +25, to match prints to screen appearance, but that´s all. I have not printed enough to have strong opinions on ink usage yet, but it seems to be fairly economical.

A2 format is the largest I bother to print at home, so the size is just right for me. All in all, I am very happy for the purchase.

 

[Hector1970]

I have a Pro-10. I don't think I'll be upgrading and time soon. It's big enough. The Pro-1000 looks even better.
Are Canon doing the opposite numbers wise with printers. Is a bigger number a better printer.
I thought it was Pro-100 --> Pro-10 ---> Pro-1 in order of importance (Pro-1 being top of the range).

My general comments on printing
a) Overly complicated
b) The interface between Lightroom / Photoshop CC and Windows and the Printer is really poor. The software is able to think it's working with one size and windows another
c) There are too many options up front, too many sliders, too many adjustments possible.
d) Its so hard straight out of the box to do a simple thing like a borderless print. You'd almost need a PhD in printing to work out how to get rid of borders
e) The error messages particularly in Lightroom are bordering on useless to explain what's wrong
f) The ink catridges are waaaay too small. After a while you can print without one of the cartridges being empty. It's a paint when you are short one of them (you can still print but only after a bit of running around and button pressing
g) Those preprinting routines the printer goes through are a right pain. Replace a cartridge and it does it all over again.
h) While print profiles really improve the quality of the images its a nuisance too. Why can't Lightroom or the printer have pre-set profiles that are approximately correct for the major paper manufacturers. Why do I have to download them and upload them seperately.
i) Custom paper profiles while excellent also require extra work
j) Its an expensive business. I don't mind paying for Ink or Paper. Having to keep replacing Ink is very irratating. The printers are so big surely there is room for much bigger ink sizes.

Having said all that once set up the quality is amazing on the Pro-10.
Is it worth the pain and learning curve - hard to say.
It's great flexibility for me to have one but it's not for everyone (you need alot of patience).

 

[LDS]

Are Canon doing the opposite numbers wise with printers. Is a bigger number a better printer.
I thought it was Pro-100 --> Pro-10 ---> Pro-1 in order of importance (Pro-1 being top of the range).

That's not a Pixma Pro printer. It's the entry level of the ImagePROGRAPH line. You'll fined bigger (and more expensive model) in the line, i.e. the 4000. It's the Pixma Pro numbering scheme a bit unusual, probably it was made to mirror how Canon numbers cameras.

a) Overly complicated

Where is written fun should be simple also? Is processing images in LR or PS easy? No...

c) There are too many options up front, too many sliders, too many adjustments possible.

The "Pro" word should have made you aware of that. "Pros" like control to achieve the desired result. "You press the button, we do the rest" was Eastman motto, but aimed a truly amateurs...

d) Its so hard straight out of the box to do a simple thing like a borderless print. You'd almost need a PhD in printing to work out how to get rid of borders

Setting "borderless printer" in the driver is so difficult?

e) The error messages particularly in Lightroom are bordering on useless to explain what's wrong

Sometimes application like LR can't do anything but reporting the error from the printer. Which may be or too uninformative, or too technical - and hope they are at least written using the correct syntax...

g) Those preprinting routines the printer goes through are a right pain. Replace a cartridge and it does it all over again.

Guess Canon would avoid them if it could. Handling liquid stuff is usually more complex than handling solid one.

h) While print profiles really improve the quality of the images its a nuisance too.

One reason is commercial (Canon may like to sell its own paper), the other is nor Canon nor Adobe control what 3rd party papers make available and their specifications. It looks to me it's the paper manufacturer in the best position to create generic profiles for its products. Anyway, most pros will make their own, or have them made.

Maybe some users may start to share the profiles they made (if they have rights to do so, of course), to help others.

i) Custom paper profiles while excellent also require extra work

Or extra money if you outsource them True, but the actual technology has no way to get rid of them. There are too many variables to control if you need the "optimal" results, and it's good you can create them as you need.

I made once the big mistake of buying an HP PhotoSmart D7260 which didn't support custom profiles and offered only two "ICC profiles": AdobeRGB and RGB (a bit strange for a printer...) Then attempted to process the images itself. Usually returning a dreadful result - it was designed around a very simple "direct-to-printer" workflow.

Since I switched to a Pro-10 I became much happier.

j) Its an expensive business. I don't mind paying for Ink or Paper. Having to keep replacing Ink is very irratating. The printers are so big surely there is room for much bigger ink sizes.

The ImagePROGRAPH has bigger cartridges (the Pro-1 has also bigger ones than the -10 and -100) - just look at how much they cost. Not feasible for printers aimed at a different market. Many Pixma Pro users may prefer to pay $12 than $80 to replace a single cartridge - even if for the same ink used they pay a little more - but they do diluted in a longer time. Sure, if you print a lot you need a printer designed for a lower cost per print.

Many business and - many hobbies as well - are expensive. The paints and pastels my sister uses for her artwork are expensive as well.