CISS printer choice

[The Hat]

Ps: e-mail sent to ? suggestion ‚move this post elsewhere .

Just click on the Report Button..

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

You are planning to go for refill with the Pro-1000, and you plan to print a lot - the incremental ink volume used for cleaning actions is just a small part of the total ink consumption - at a budget pricing level for refill inks - I wouldn't consider this a serious reason not to select this printer model when it overall would fit your needs.

 

[photog-art-printer]

You are planning to go for refill with the Pro-1000, and you plan to print a lot - the incremental ink volume used for cleaning actions is just a small part of the total ink consumption - at a budget pricing level for refill inks - I wouldn't consider this a serious reason not to select this printer model when it overall would fit your needs.

You are planning to go for refill with the Pro-1000, and you plan to print a lot - the incremental ink volume used for cleaning actions is just a small part of the total ink consumption - at a budget pricing level for refill inks - I wouldn't consider this a serious reason not to select this printer model when it overall would fit your needs.

Yes, absolutely - agree.
When I responded to another post about ink consumption, I was just providing possible insight (into their problem of the mysteriously disappearing ink).

For my purposes …. It’s not important.

12 inks or 4?
We’ve discussed it, some photographers insist 12 inks are better than 4.

My own experience with a 13” Canon (maybe the Pro 9500) produced excellent results when used with genuine cartridges. Printing was an easy to use, straightforward experience.

Therefore I conclude … may as well have 12 inks … why not?

The only possible reason to choose 4 instead of 12 is to gain a financial advantage …. such as being able to print on larger paper if I sacrifice more inks.

I’m still a bit confused due to the choices, and that’s fine, because I’m not in a hurry, the pictures to be printed are in a safe in another country … etcetera.

By the way: It seems to me the Canon 1000 is not “bulk ink ready “.

Videos indicate re-filling is certainly do-able with a syringe, but I can’t notice anything out of the ordinary.

The Canon 1000 appears to be a good choice (as you have previously indicated).

The lack of urgency allows me to compare the specs (and write them down using pen and paper …. as I find this easier to understand).

—-
4 ink printer
The Canon ImagePROGRAF TA-20 also looks interesting.
It uses 4 inks, prints up to 24”/61cm …. for the same price as the Canon 1000.

Refill: According to internet information, ink refilling requires a drill and syringe:

—-

Epson SureColor SC-T3100 (no x)

This unit seems similar to the TA-20 for a few hundred more.

The X version SC-T3100X is certainly interesting because of the ‘built in CISS’.
Paying an extra 2400 Euro for this feature reduces it’s wonderfulness.
(It’s 4 ink, as previously discussed).

—-

4 ink HP - HP DesignJet T230

This is also a possibility. It can be found for about 800 Euro.
The advantage over the Canon 1000 is 24” instead of 17”.
But it’s 4 ink rather than 12.
(Yes, I understand probably not much difference).

Refill kits are available. Quality unknown: https://www.inkowl.com/wide-format/...0-t250-t520-t525-t530-t630-t650-studio/P8279/

Note: If the price is similar, personally I’d probably pick 12 inks rather than 4 (and lose the advantage of extra size)

 

[photog-art-printer]

Elsewhere on this site I read:

“the Canon image PROGRAF TA-20 already comes with a built in CISS…!”
But it doesn’t look like it on this video … drill and syringe are involved.

 

[The Hat]

For my purposes …. It’s not important.

These carts can be refilled without drilling as shown in that video, so don’t believe everything you see, and this guy is also refilling with dye inks..

It’s a case of swings and roundabouts when choosing a printer, you’ll never get the one you actually want, so choose wisely.. The Pro 1000 printer come with almost a litre of ink included in the price, and that’s an awful lot…

 

[photog-art-printer]

These carts can be refilled without drilling as shown in that video, so don’t believe everything you see, and this guy is also refilling with dye inks..

It’s a case of swings and roundabouts when choosing a printer, you’ll never get the one you actually want, so choose wisely.. The Pro 1000 printer come with almost a litre of ink included in the price, and that’s an awful lot…

“ Pro 1000 printer come with almost a litre of ink included in the price”

That’s great. Didn’t realize so much ink included. This printer has a good chance of ‘winning’

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

I think yu can call the technical setup - cartridges at one place - and connected to the printhead with a set of tubes - as an internal CISS - and connecting a 2nd external CISS - as an attempt to replace the cartridges - can cause a variety of problems.

The Pro-1000 comes with 12 inks which increases the effective ink volume

I see the question somewhere - 4 inks vs. 12 inks - does it make a difference - it's as always - it depends. Additional inks with saturated colors like red or green or violett increase the gamut slightly - yes - in direct comparison - if...

- you have an image which has enough colors just in the range where the 12 color gamut exceeds the 4 colors gamut, so you can possibly see differences in printouts - in direct comparison

- if you use a photo paper which gives you a large gamut anyway - as well with a 4 ink printer - it would not work to use a paper with a smaller gamut - like matte papers typically - and hoping that the 12 color print will compensate that weakness - no.

- Some of the additional colors are gray inks of different lightness - they improve visibly the neutrality of B/W prints , they create a good improvement for B/W prints in general.

- Some light/photo inks - typically magenta or cyan - are non-saturated inks - they don't increase the gamut at all,
their benefit is a smoother, more even look of lighter colors which are dithered - the visibility of individual droplets is reduced vs. droplets with saturated inks - they look slightly grainier - this all a pretty close distance - if you don't know about it you don't see that effect.

So yes - there are some differences between 4 inks or 12 inks which can be explained technically - but the question is whether your images would gain from 12 inks - that's something only a comparative test would show.

- You may look beyond this current project - whether you would continue to print photos - e.g. on glossy paper - photos taken with newer - more capable camera hardware - more resolution - a workflow working with a wider color space - e.g. Adobe RGB

 

[photog-art-printer]

Hi again Ink Stained Fingers!

At this time, the information needs a while to settle in my brain



Basically, the Canon 1000 seems to be top of the list, especially due to the liter of included pigment ink.



Didn’t think about that until you mentioned it.



Won’t mess around with tubes …. plan to refill the cartridges as required. We shall continue to call the existing cartridges an internal COSS.



Will research ink as another project. As you know, no shortage of claims.



The 4 inks versus 12 inks …… if the ink is free …. definitely 12!



I’m intending to use Matt paper only … you have explained that will also limit colour gamut.

I’m not what some people call a ‘pixel peeper’, but I do know a good photograph when I see one.

My previous Canon (I believe one is the 9500) produced excellent results … at a cost.

What I’m trying to say is, I’m a satisfied customer… with Canon 12 ink systems on Matt paper.

That’s all I care about.



If a modern 4 ink system can match that quality, and provide some extra incentive (such as roll paper + cutter, 23” instead of 17”, cheaper price) … I’m ready to discuss it.



Close distance versus ‘viewing distance’.

No. Don’t accept that .

It has to be good without compromise.



You wrote: “ You may look beyond this current project - whether you would continue to print photos - e.g. on glossy paper - photos taken with newer - more capable camera hardware - more resolution - a workflow working with a wider color space - e.g. Adobe RGB … “.



Yes. Agree. A couple of good ones were taken fairly recently and may, or may not benefit from a wider range of inks.

As I have written … basically … why not have the extra inks?



By the way, all my pix are now adobeRGB (the old ones have been saved in this colour space (for no good reason).



Regarding ‘more capable camera’:

Most of my pictures during the previous few years has been shot on medium-format digital ….. so no problem there.



Prior to that, a few of the older shots were taken on 6x6, 6x7, and 645 transparency film



The film is gone … probably forever, those were scanned at around 10,000 pixels across and only saved as JPG … but the content is interesting … and the old scans can be improved with a bit of experience

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

The 4 inks versus 12 inks …… if the ink is free …. definitely 12!

One of the 'inks' is the Chroma optimizer, the driver only uses it on glossy papers but it get consumed slowly druing cleaning cycles as well, but this should not dampen your enthusiasm too much. Since you have already experience with a 9500 you'll be happy with the Pro-1000 .
When it comes to editing and storing images don't just consider AdobeRGB necessary but work with 16 bit colors instead of 8 bit, and forget any compressing file formats like .jpg - the cost of disk storage got so much down over the last years that this is not a cost factor anymore.

 

[photog-art-printer]

You wrote: “storing images don't just consider AdobeRGB necessary but work with 16 bit colors instead of 8 bit.

Everything these days is AdobeRGB.
I’ve not been using ProFoto (with wider gamut) purely because I often save original to jpg. Using ProFoto for this causes various problems, sometimes colour shifts at ‘the other end’ … so for ease of use, AdobeRGB is fine.

16 bit:
Maybe in the future, if I take a spectacular shot, I’ll save at as 16bit as well.

As you probably know, there is a big difference with speed when using 16bit compared to 8bit.

I’ve spent the last two years sorting through a few million old photos.
This has been done roughly and automatically, even so, searching through …. say 300,000 shots takes a number of hours.
Most of my good pictures …. 3000 of them over 20 years … were shot on film, scanned into JPG.

Since then, lots of digital photos, most of it junk (good quality, technically perfect, but uninteresting)

—-

You wrote: “forget any compressing file formats like .jpg”

Yes. Everything shot during the past few years is saved at 8bit TIF. These are saved as JPG for clients/as required.

In case nobody remembers … a little HDD history:

My first Mac system (total cost for everything, without tax $75,000. Price included scanner, printer, optical drive, monitor, $1900 modem, etcetera).
Largest hard drive available = 400 megabytes (not gigabytes).
Therefore …. maybe it could store a few hundred JPGs. Anything else onto optical drives ($170? Per 105 megabytes).
Not sure of the price of the optical discs, may have only been $100. Each disk could handle around 40 photos.

Around 1994 I purchased… for $5000 a ‘massive’ Seahate Barracuda’ HDD.
“You’ll never need another drive”.
Since that time I’ve destroyed at least 20 hard drives.

Therefore: Based on the price, it’s easy to see why JPG used to be necessary.