I'm printing a large, 66"x44" borderless print on my PRO-4000. I'm printing to a 44" roll of photo paper. I'm using Canon print studio pro. However, there is about a one inch area along the bottom of the print that I can only describe as a "glitch." There's a photo attached of a print I canceled once I realized it was doing this. The only way I can describe it is that it takes what is along the bottom edge of the photo and prints kind of a smear of that along the bottom edge of the print. Why is it doing this? It's about an inch wide, and only at the bottom of the print, not the top. There is nothing like this in the print itself when I look at it on my screen. Thanks.
SOLVED: Canon PRO-4000, strange glitch or "streaks" at the edge of large prints
- Thread starter Kit Lens Jockey
- Start date
I have had the same thing happen once or twice with my PRO-2000, always the bottom edge though not borderless.
I cant remember what exactly it was offhand but it was a simple setting error on my part, either a paper size entry issue or Photoshop to Print Studio mismatch. Just go through the settings slowly and it will be apparent.
I cant remember what exactly it was offhand but it was a simple setting error on my part, either a paper size entry issue or Photoshop to Print Studio mismatch. Just go through the settings slowly and it will be apparent.
Upvote
0
Ok, I left a print go through because I really need to get these done quickly and it's not 100% critical that they're perfect, and it also did this weird thing along the right side of the print. 
Upvote
0
I thought when using Print Studio Pro that any settings you might have set in Photoshop itself were pretty much inconsequential and overridden by Print Studio Pro. Thanks, I will look around though.
Upvote
0
I rarely end up using the canon print software unless I am doing mixed weird format proofing I cant logically or easily layout in Lightroom. I do use the Canon accounting software though, I find that very useful.
I wish I could remember what setting it was but I remember having an ‘of course’ moment when I noticed it, its been a while since I made that same error.
I wish I could remember what setting it was but I remember having an ‘of course’ moment when I noticed it, its been a while since I made that same error.
Upvote
0
Honestly I have never been able to get Photoshop to print to a roll on the PRO-4000 correctly. I've rotated the image, I've changed the paper orientation, the margins, the paper size, everything. Never seems to print to a roll the way I want it to just using photoshop. So, I just use Print Studio Pro whenever I print to a roll. But, clearly it has its own issues too. I'm really hoping I can get this figured out.
Upvote
0
I wasn't sure if it was going to be much use because of what a weird and hard to describe problem it was, but I decided to call Canon tech support. I was pleasantly surprised to hear that they had heard of this in the past and knew exactly what was going on.
It is not a paper settings issue. For some reason, before printing, in Photoshop, you need to "flatten" the image, or flatten all the layers down so it's just one background layer. (In the menu, Layer>Flatten Image.)
So, obviously this seems like a little glitch with Print Studio Pro. It's definitely not intuitive or any kind of "of course" moment when I heard how to fix it. But, luckily it's an easy fix, if you know what to do. Hopefully someone gets some help from this post in the future.
It is not a paper settings issue. For some reason, before printing, in Photoshop, you need to "flatten" the image, or flatten all the layers down so it's just one background layer. (In the menu, Layer>Flatten Image.)
So, obviously this seems like a little glitch with Print Studio Pro. It's definitely not intuitive or any kind of "of course" moment when I heard how to fix it. But, luckily it's an easy fix, if you know what to do. Hopefully someone gets some help from this post in the future.
Upvote
0
I beg to differ. I never flatten my print file as I am always doing localized curves adjustments to specific tonal areas.
What they said might well work but it isn’t the solution I used nor would use as it simply doesnt fit in with my workflow.
The way I print is basically the workflow laid out by Jeff Schewe in the seminal work on the subject ‘The Digital Print’. Two windows in PS next to each other one with the file as you want it to look with your screen profile applied and another window with the print profile applied and adjustment layers as needed to match the two. I then keep a separate ‘print file’ with those adjustment layers so I can reprint, with the same printer and paper, without any other effort. Should I want to print on several different printers or papers I will put each series of adjustment layers into a group that is named as per the printing combination. sounds worse than it is but if you end up doing a lot of printing then it saves a lot of time and materials In proofing costs.
What they said might well work but it isn’t the solution I used nor would use as it simply doesnt fit in with my workflow.
The way I print is basically the workflow laid out by Jeff Schewe in the seminal work on the subject ‘The Digital Print’. Two windows in PS next to each other one with the file as you want it to look with your screen profile applied and another window with the print profile applied and adjustment layers as needed to match the two. I then keep a separate ‘print file’ with those adjustment layers so I can reprint, with the same printer and paper, without any other effort. Should I want to print on several different printers or papers I will put each series of adjustment layers into a group that is named as per the printing combination. sounds worse than it is but if you end up doing a lot of printing then it saves a lot of time and materials In proofing costs.
Upvote
0
Well, regardless of whether or not it fits into your workflow, I can't help but to accept Canon's own solution to the issue. They are the company that made both the printer and the program after all.
If you're that opposed to flattening the layers before printing, I don't think it would be possible for you to use Print Studio Pro. Rather than any legitimate setting relating to the print output, this seems to simply be a glitch with the software. And while maybe there's potentially some other way to resolve this glitch, I'm sure it would take a lot of experimentation since just by the nature of it being a glitch, whatever solution you find to it won't make any real logical sense.
And to be honest I don't really buy the whole printer profile on a screen method of trying to proof your prints. I admit it's a complicated thing to figure out and I may still have something set wrong, but I've tried proofing on my screen before using a printer profile, and it still doesn't match the actual printer output.
No matter what profiles you're viewing your print on your screen with, you're still viewing it on a screen. If I want to know exactly what my print will look like, I'll just run off a small print for a proof.
If you're that opposed to flattening the layers before printing, I don't think it would be possible for you to use Print Studio Pro. Rather than any legitimate setting relating to the print output, this seems to simply be a glitch with the software. And while maybe there's potentially some other way to resolve this glitch, I'm sure it would take a lot of experimentation since just by the nature of it being a glitch, whatever solution you find to it won't make any real logical sense.
And to be honest I don't really buy the whole printer profile on a screen method of trying to proof your prints. I admit it's a complicated thing to figure out and I may still have something set wrong, but I've tried proofing on my screen before using a printer profile, and it still doesn't match the actual printer output.
No matter what profiles you're viewing your print on your screen with, you're still viewing it on a screen. If I want to know exactly what my print will look like, I'll just run off a small print for a proof.
Upvote
0
I feel we have gotten off on the wrong foot.
I am not presenting anything new or an unusual personal opinion, after years of making my own and other photographers prints I ended up with a workflow I could have adopted had I done some simple reading at the beginning, this would have saved me time and money and will save anybody coming into this time and money and get them dramatically higher consistency.
Again, I am not saying Canon’s solution doesn’t work I am just saying it isn‘t the solution I used because it doesn’t fit in with a near industry standard print workflow.
Believe me once you get your monitor well calibrated and you work with good printer/ink/paper profiles the screen proofing gets you so close even the most critical of observers will be happy. I asked Keith from Northlight Images, a member and occasional poster here, to make me a custom paper profile for the PRO-2000 and Epson Premium Lustre paper and my screen is as close to an exact match under my viewing lights as I could hope for. He has several custom Pro series profiles and is happy to share them, just drop him an email.
For a viewing area I have these Solux bulbs and tracking http://www.solux.net/colorproofing.htm best $200 I ever spent on my printing. I also have my screen output and viewing station luminance matched.
I’m not trying to tell you you and or Canon are wrong, just saying that isn’t the only solution or the best solution if you have a different workflow.
I am not presenting anything new or an unusual personal opinion, after years of making my own and other photographers prints I ended up with a workflow I could have adopted had I done some simple reading at the beginning, this would have saved me time and money and will save anybody coming into this time and money and get them dramatically higher consistency.
Again, I am not saying Canon’s solution doesn’t work I am just saying it isn‘t the solution I used because it doesn’t fit in with a near industry standard print workflow.
Believe me once you get your monitor well calibrated and you work with good printer/ink/paper profiles the screen proofing gets you so close even the most critical of observers will be happy. I asked Keith from Northlight Images, a member and occasional poster here, to make me a custom paper profile for the PRO-2000 and Epson Premium Lustre paper and my screen is as close to an exact match under my viewing lights as I could hope for. He has several custom Pro series profiles and is happy to share them, just drop him an email.
For a viewing area I have these Solux bulbs and tracking http://www.solux.net/colorproofing.htm best $200 I ever spent on my printing. I also have my screen output and viewing station luminance matched.
I’m not trying to tell you you and or Canon are wrong, just saying that isn’t the only solution or the best solution if you have a different workflow.
Upvote
0
Good to hear Canon solved that irritating problem!
The cameras and printers are made by Canon, but then we have monitors, video cards, operating systems, Adobe software, and papers (often) made by other companies. Canon develops a workflow and tech-support methodology that works for them and for many photographers. But I believe Jeff Schewe and many of the printers who share their techniques online have workflow variations that work for a large number of variables.
In other words, one size shoe does not fit all.
In fact, I don't have to worry about whether to flatten my layers: I print from Lightroom. This is the workflow that works for me. I use a Spyder4Pro, and I download ICC profiles for Moad, Canson, and Ilford. The Epson paper profiles are embedded in the 3880's software. They soft-proof with what I consider astounding accuracy.
But I don't print at the larger sizes you do! My largest is usually 13x19.
I'm happily in the Jeff Schewe camp with an Epson 3880 printer; however, as the printer is now six years old, and Epsons's replacement for it, the P-800 seems to have inherited several annoying shortcomings, I am looking hard at the Canon Pro-1000. I don't want to buy another round of ink for a 3880 I believe will need some major service soon. Plus I have a rebate coming if I go with the Pro-1000 and its set of FULL SIZE INK CARTRIDGES. (Take that, Epson.)
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I loved the Pro-1000 so much that I bought a PRO-4000.
Also, be aware that even though the 1000 does come with a full set of full size cartridges, you use about half of them up just priming the lines and internal storage tanks with ink. So, when the printer is finally ready to print, all of your cartridges will start out at about half.
Also, be aware that even though the 1000 does come with a full set of full size cartridges, you use about half of them up just priming the lines and internal storage tanks with ink. So, when the printer is finally ready to print, all of your cartridges will start out at about half.
Upvote
0
But unlike Epson printers Canon printers will keep printing when the cartridges are empty, they actually use the ink stored in the internal tanks to keep printing. Epson printers stop mid print and will not restart until a new chipped ink cartridge is fitted.
I like the idea of a bigger than 24" printer but as I rarely even print 24" on the short side it really isn't a limitation. Maybe when the high resolution R comes out I'll look at it again but I have never been impressed with larger prints than 24" x 36" from a 135 format sensor.
Upvote
0
Not that I have delved into. I regularly spend months away from my printers and unplug them so they can't do self maintenance, I do this because of lightening strikes which are very common where I live.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
