IP4000 vs. IP5000 -- final thoughts

[Sarah Feliz]

What I meant is even though the results are to close to call someone at
PDC Mag felt that was some however small and however maginal diference.
That is what I meant and based on that and the fact that I use my HP
more for business I kept my IP4000 and am happy with it.

Good for you. But that's no reason to push the 4000 above and beyond
anything else.

I would imagine so. I have not seen the same photo printed side by side.

Since you haven't seen the same photo printed side by side and you haven't
conducted tests on both printers, you can't really judge. You certainly
can't make the call. Another reason why your pushing the 4000 as the best
printer of all time is unjustified.

 

[Sarah Feliz]

What I meant is even though the results are to close to call someone at
PDC Mag felt that was some however small and however maginal diference.
That is what I meant and based on that and the fact that I use my HP
more for business I kept my IP4000 and am happy with it.


I would imagine so. I have not seen the same photo printed side by side.


Maybe that is what the reviewer at PC Mag felt but he just made a call.


I do not fiddle with those controls. Using OEM ink I am happy with my
results.

Because you haven't done comparison printing, you may not realize that the
Canons print too dark and oversaturated. But they do. And yes, they do so
with OEM inks (what else would I be using on a printer I'm testing and
planning to return if not the inks that come in the box with the printer?).
It's not a matter of "fiddling with the controls" as if this were an option
one can take or leave. Without the possibility of making these adjustments,
these Canon printers (any printer, actually) would be worthless. Only rarely
do they produce photos that do not require toning down the black, reducing
the yellows and magentas. This is something that various photo professional
reviews point out. Once these adjustments are made, you have the potential
for a great photo. But not before.

 

[Davy]

Taliesynwrote:

I quote from PC Mag Review on the ip5000
"On our business-applications suite, the iP5000 almost matched the
record-holding iP4000, with a total time of 16 minutes 9 seconds, a
difference of just 21 seconds spread out over 13 tests. On our photo
suite, however, it was significantly slower, averaging about 1 minute
longer for both 4- by 6-inch photos, at 2:06 each, and 8- by 10-inch
photos, at 3:38 each", UNQUOTE.

If PC Mag says they printed a photo in 2:06 then that's no where near
the printer's maximum resolution.

At the highest resolution setting (9600 dpi) on the iP5000 - photo
paper
pro and Custom Quality set to 1, Fine - it should take between 3:45
and
4:00 for a 4x6 print on the iP5000. I just printed one, with a
border,
and it took 3:45.


Davy say's
Thanks Taliesyn this proves the point that PC Mag got it wrong but
they ignored the fact and did not check when I took it up with the
very David Stone.

And this is mis-leadiing if this is the case by PC Mag and also this
is the very reason that the "one step lower in photo quality than
the ip4000" has 'STUCK' which goes to show you can't take the reviews
as gospel.

It seems rather strange that neither Steve's Digicams nor photo-i are
willing to do a side by side - is this to do with Canon I wonder?

Davy

 

[measekite]

Hmm...when I looked under a loupe all photos appeared to have "dots" --4000,
5000, the HP 8450, they all had these tiny dots (scary to look at but not
visible to the naked eye). When you say "many areas looked like continuous
tone" on the i960--what do you mean? No dots at all? Really? That's amazing.
Maybe I should reconsider my choice???

And I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. To be serious, the
discontinued i960 is a very good printer that is able to produce very
subtle tones if the photograph originally had them. However, there are
downsides. It costs more to run because of additional cartridges. It
does much worse on business documents and graphics as per both PC Mag
and Canon Factory Rep. It does not print full duplex and does not have
twin paper feeds. It is also slower. The light dye load inks that it
uses (Lt Magenta and Lt Cyan) have a greater tendency to fade. It does
not have a pigmented black for text.

Its replacement, the Canon IP6000D, is also a 6 color printer. When
tested by PC Mag it proved slower, not as good on photos and much worse
on business documents than the IP4000.

Thanks for all this info. Where exactly did you see recommendations to
reduce intensity from -4 to -6? Or is that a formulation you've come up
with?

Burt came up with that based on his tastes on skin tones of his grand kids.

I didn't reduce intensity, it seemed to make more sense to reduce the
black, even up to -10. I wonder what the difference is between reducing
intensity and reducing black. I think when you tweak individual colors you
have more control (but also more work, of course). When you reduce
intensity, it applies that deduction across the board (which may be
desirable sometimes but not always).

I believe photoshop allows you to reduce intensity of a selected portion
of a photo if need be.

He has not seen your differences in color shifts between the IP4000 and
the IP5000 so how would he know.

 

[measekite]

Good for you. But that's no reason to push the 4000 above and beyond
anything else.

Everyone has an opinion. I recommend Canon over others and I recommend
the IP4000 over the IP5000 for all purposes except where the printload
is weighted more toward the business side. It is also $40.00 cheaper.
The probability of a 1pl printhead clogging more over a 2pl head is
still unknown. There are not enough of them in the field for a long
enough period of time. It also concerns me why Canon did not promote a
1pl printhead in the newer more expensive IP8500.

 

[measekite]

Because you haven't done comparison printing, you may not realize that the
Canons print too dark and oversaturated.

I have taken a couple of different photos and played with the intensity
in photoshop and printed them both. In those cases I prefered the more
saturated photo. I also took a test photo provided by Adobe and printed
it on the Canon and HP printers. On the Canon I used the effects menu
on one printing to increase vibrancy. I actually preferred that. I
intend to also print this on my friends Epson R300 on the same paper and
compare.

But they do. And yes, they do so
with OEM inks (what else would I be using on a printer I'm testing and
planning to return if not the inks that come in the box with the printer?).
It's not a matter of "fiddling with the controls" as if this were an option
one can take or leave. Without the possibility of making these adjustments,
these Canon printers (any printer, actually) would be worthless. Only rarely
do they produce photos that do not require toning down the black, reducing
the yellows and magentas. This is something that various photo professional
reviews point out.

What are the links to these professional reviews? I am interested in
reading them.

 

[Burt]

Hmm...when I looked under a loupe all photos appeared to have
"dots" --4000,
5000, the HP 8450, they all had these tiny dots (scary to look at but not
visible to the naked eye). When you say "many areas looked like continuous
tone" on the i960--what do you mean? No dots at all? Really? That's
amazing.
Maybe I should reconsider my choice???

The areas that were most like continuous tone were uniformly blue sky and
other areas that had little variation in color or contrast. The dots are
still there but are much more subdued and closer to continuous color. The
most noticeable half-tone appearance occurs where ink colors must be mixed
on the paper to create colors that represent a combination of ink colors and
areas that have variation in contrast. I have never used a pixma printer,
but I would guess that your choice of the IP5000 is as good, if not better,
than my I960. Neil Slade considered the I960 as the best photo printer (8
1/2 inch wide format) available before the Pixma line came out. He had
side-by-side comparisons of photo prints on his web site from several
printers to back up his opinion. When the Pixma line came out, his opinion
was that the I960 was still the best of the ones he had tested. One man's
opinion, but one that is backed up with examples of his tests or reasons for
his opinion.

Thanks for all this info. Where exactly did you see recommendations to
reduce intensity from -4 to -6? Or is that a formulation you've come up
with? I didn't reduce intensity, it seemed to make more sense to reduce
the
black, even up to -10. I wonder what the difference is between reducing
intensity and reducing black. I think when you tweak individual colors you
have more control (but also more work, of course). When you reduce
intensity, it applies that deduction across the board (which may be
desirable sometimes but not always).

I experimented with various settings. My granddaughter has very fair skin
and my wife's coloring tends more to warmer skin tones. My monitor is
calibrated to the photoshop gamma program and I do whatever adjustments look
best on the monitor with Photoshop Elements. Usually start with levels and
overall or selected areas of color correction. If a print still showed too
much intensity in the skin tones I backed off the intensity in two unit
increments until it looked right to me. You are right, however, that this
reduces intensity in the entire print. It is a bit of a balancing act.
I've also reduced magenta slightly to compare with reduced intensity. Best
to play with it and get the best print to your liking. After a while you
get the feel for what might work best on any particular print.

I see than Measekite responded as expected - he loves to follow my posts
with any and all criticism possible. As to the duplex printing and the two
paper feed areas, it is my understanding that photo paper and other media
much heavier than 24 pound standard copy/printing paper should only be used
from the feed with the straightest paper path. I have read that duplex
printing is slower than manually flipping the paper to print the second
side. It probably works well in printing a single copy of a mult-page
collated document, but my double side printing involves heavy stock and 50
to 150 copies. Easiest to do a print run of one side and then flip the
whole pile and run the second side. Of course, it has to be done in batches
as the feed area will not accomodate that many pages of card stock. My text
printing is done on an HP laser printer, so I have no need for the pigmented
black used on the IP4000. My wife also has an I960 and does general
printing with it. With dye based black ink on standard non-coated
copy/printer paper her text printing is sharp, clear and dark black. I'm
not sure how much better the pigmented black ink would be.

Measekite also criticized my assumption that my comparison of the difference
between OEM and MIS inks to your description of the magenta and yellow
shifts was less than you saw between the two printers. If I were to show
you the prints individually you would regard them as equally attractive, and
the difference with side-by-side comparison would possibly be imperceptable.
Again, I would suggest that you go onto the Neil Slade site for some
interesting information.
http://www.neilslade.com/papers/inkjetstuff.html is the link. As I said,
it is one man's opinion, but he backs it up with compelling evidence in most
cases.

When you have started evaluating fine arts papers I would be interested in
reading about your experience. From the few posts I have read from you, I
have a lot of respect for how you go about evaluating and coming to
conclusions about things that are of interest to me and to the newsgroup.

 

[Sarah Feliz]

The areas that were most like continuous tone were uniformly blue sky and
other areas that had little variation in color or contrast. The dots are
still there but are much more subdued and closer to continuous color. The
most noticeable half-tone appearance occurs where ink colors must be mixed
on the paper to create colors that represent a combination of ink colors and
areas that have variation in contrast. I have never used a pixma printer,
but I would guess that your choice of the IP5000 is as good, if not better,
than my I960. Neil Slade considered the I960 as the best photo printer (8
1/2 inch wide format) available before the Pixma line came out. He had
side-by-side comparisons of photo prints on his web site from several
printers to back up his opinion. When the Pixma line came out, his opinion
was that the I960 was still the best of the ones he had tested. One man's
opinion, but one that is backed up with examples of his tests or reasons for
his opinion.

Better than the Epson R800? I'm told that this printer is especially good on
grain--that is, on absence of grain. Any knowledge of that? I was surprised
at how much grain the 4000 and 5000 showed (under a loupe). Perhaps they all
do. I haven't had a chance to work with the R800.

 

[Burt]

Better than the Epson R800? I'm told that this printer is especially good
on
grain--that is, on absence of grain. Any knowledge of that? I was
surprised
at how much grain the 4000 and 5000 showed (under a loupe). Perhaps they
all
do. I haven't had a chance to work with the R800.

I don't recall which printer model he compared the I960 to. Go on to his
site and read all the sections. Interesting information. If he no longer
has the comparison photos on the site you can email him and he may either
direct you to a link or email them to you as an attachment. I can only
compare my printer to the one I used previously for photo printing, the
Epson Stylus 900. This came out before their Stylus Photo series and was a
dye based printer. When comparing prints with a loupe I was amazed to see
the "grain" in the Epson print. looked like a field of boulders compared to
the much newer Canon image. Of course, this was much older technology and
it is not fair to compare them. A couple of questions - It is my
understanding that most professional photographers and graphic designers use
the high end Epsons. What factors led you to purchase the Canon? Also,
what resolutions images are you printing? What MP rating on the camera, and
how much of the image are you printing (amount of cropping)? If from a
scan, what is the quality of the original and at what resolution did you do
the scan? Obviously, less "information" in the image you are printing will
give more "grain." I put the term grain in quotes as there was a LONG
series of posts in which people were criticized for using the term grain for
the dotty-ness of digital prints as grain originally referred to the
appearance of silver halide particles in film emulsion. Let's not start
that one again!!!

 

[measekite]

The areas that were most like continuous tone were uniformly blue sky and
other areas that had little variation in color or contrast. The dots are
still there but are much more subdued and closer to continuous color. The
most noticeable half-tone appearance occurs where ink colors must be mixed
on the paper to create colors that represent a combination of ink colors and
areas that have variation in contrast. I have never used a pixma printer,
but I would guess that your choice of the IP5000 is as good, if not better,
than my I960. Neil Slade considered the I960 as the best photo printer (8
1/2 inch wide format) available before the Pixma line came out. He had
side-by-side comparisons of photo prints on his web site from several
printers to back up his opinion. When the Pixma line came out, his opinion
was that the I960 was still the best of the ones he had tested. One man's
opinion, but one that is backed up with examples of his tests or reasons for
his opinion.



I experimented with various settings. My granddaughter has very fair skin
and my wife's coloring tends more to warmer skin tones. My monitor is
calibrated to the photoshop gamma program and I do whatever adjustments look
best on the monitor with Photoshop Elements. Usually start with levels and
overall or selected areas of color correction. If a print still showed too
much intensity in the skin tones I backed off the intensity in two unit
increments until it looked right to me. You are right, however, that this
reduces intensity in the entire print. It is a bit of a balancing act.
I've also reduced magenta slightly to compare with reduced intensity. Best
to play with it and get the best print to your liking. After a while you
get the feel for what might work best on any particular print.

I see than Measekite responded as expected - he loves to follow my posts
with any and all criticism possible. As to the duplex printing and the two
paper feed areas, it is my understanding that photo paper and other media
much heavier than 24 pound standard copy/printing paper should only be used
from the feed with the straightest paper path. I have read that duplex
printing is slower than manually flipping the paper to print the second
side.

It does indeed print slower for a one page document. It does delay
flipping for the ink to dry but that time is controlled by the driver
setting. If you print a 50 page document you have to print all of the
odd pages and then flip and print all of the even pages or you can
initiate print and go do something else and come back to a completed
accurate print job. I have done that many times.

I do not know what the limit of thickness is for the cassette tray. I
think it is in the Canon manual. The nice thing abuut dual paper feed
is I keep business document paper in the cassette and then load photo
paper in the top autosheet feeder. This way the printer is always
available on the network. The i960 does not have this versatility.

It probably works well in printing a single copy of a mult-page
collated document, but my double side printing involves heavy stock and 50
to 150 copies. Easiest to do a print run of one side and then flip the
whole pile and run the second side.

You also have this option on your versatile IP5000.

Of course, it has to be done in batches
as the feed area will not accomodate that many pages of card stock. My text
printing is done on an HP laser printer, so I have no need for the pigmented
black used on the IP4000. My wife also has an I960 and does general
printing with it. With dye based black ink on standard non-coated
copy/printer paper her text printing is sharp, clear and dark black. I'm
not sure how much better the pigmented black ink would be.

Measekite also criticized my assumption that my comparison of the difference
between OEM and MIS inks to your description of the magenta and yellow
shifts was less than you saw between the two printers. If I were to show
you the prints individually you would regard them as equally attractive

I can understand that is your opinion but one never knows what another
finds attractive.

 

[Sarah Feliz]

I don't recall which printer model he compared the I960 to. Go on to his
site and read all the sections. Interesting information. If he no longer
has the comparison photos on the site you can email him and he may either
direct you to a link or email them to you as an attachment. I can only
compare my printer to the one I used previously for photo printing, the
Epson Stylus 900. This came out before their Stylus Photo series and was a
dye based printer. When comparing prints with a loupe I was amazed to see
the "grain" in the Epson print. looked like a field of boulders compared to
the much newer Canon image. Of course, this was much older technology and
it is not fair to compare them. A couple of questions - It is my
understanding that most professional photographers and graphic designers use
the high end Epsons. What factors led you to purchase the Canon? Also,
what resolutions images are you printing? What MP rating on the camera, and
how much of the image are you printing (amount of cropping)? If from a
scan, what is the quality of the original and at what resolution did you do
the scan? Obviously, less "information" in the image you are printing will
give more "grain." I put the term grain in quotes as there was a LONG
series of posts in which people were criticized for using the term grain for
the dotty-ness of digital prints as grain originally referred to the
appearance of silver halide particles in film emulsion. Let's not start
that one again!!!

Okay, I take that back about the grain. Right you are. I was referring to
the "dottiness" of the printout. I just remembered that my boss has a 2200
in his office -- I'm going to bring my loupe to work tomorrow and check on
the dot factor of his printouts on a table lamp. Will let you know what I
find.

Regarding the Epsons, indeed most photographers and graphic designers choose
the high-end Epson inkjets because of quality issues across the board (and
this despite Epson's notorious clogging problem, so that should tell you
something.) I myself am holding out for the newly released Epson 2400 ($849)
but will only get it in the fall or early winter. I need a "good enough"
printer in the meantime, something I can (and will continue) to use for
proofing, testing, quick stuff, text files, etc. I chose the Canon because I
didn't want to deal with clogging issues (but now I'm wondering whether I
should have gotten the Epson R800 and stayed within the same printing
environment of the more expensive item I will purchase later).

I've used an HP895C until now -- which I loved -- but it's on its last gasp
(I've had it for 6 years, it was a workhorse, never a problem, printed
photos and graphics like gangbusters -- at the time it cost $399). So I'm
not wed to Epson but the newer crop of midlevel HPs has not impressed me. On
the high end, however, HP has come out with its DesignJet series (I hope I
have the name right), and I've been hearing good things about it for
professional use.

As to resolution, I print anywhere from 240 to 300 dpi, never lower. My
digital camera is way outdated (2 MP) (so some of the dot factor may be
coming from there????) but I never print larger than 5 x7.

 

[Burt]

It does indeed print slower for a one page document. It does delay
flipping for the ink to dry but that time is controlled by the driver
setting. If you print a 50 page document you have to print all of the odd
pages and then flip and print all of the even pages or you can initiate
print and go do something else and come back to a completed accurate print
job.

Measekite - You just said, in your own words, what I stated in my original
post - that the duplex feature is best used for double side printing in a
multi-page collated document you wish to print on both sides. Obviously
that would be even pages on one side and odd on the other. I also stated
that I have no need for that feature, so the additional versatility is of no
value to me.

I have done that many times.

I do not know what the limit of thickness is for the cassette tray.

If the Cassette try feed requires the paper to make a "U" turn, you would be
well advised to NOT use it for heavier stock, photo paper, or envelopes. I
don't care what the limit is in the manual.

I think it is in the Canon manual. The nice thing abuut dual paper feed
is I keep business document paper in the cassette and then load photo
paper in the top autosheet feeder.

Here, again, I stated that I use an HP Laser printer for business documents.
Much cheaper in the long run for black text documents than your use of OEM
inks (unless you also require some color text or pictures intermixed with
text) in the IP4000. You had mentioned that your programming printouts
include some color text. Unless someone is using the printer for
considerable text printing, the extra black pigmented cart is of no benefit.

This way the printer is always

available on the network. The i960 does not have this versatility.

The areas of versatility you mention are only valuable to someone who needs
them. If I had them they would go unused as I use my inkjet printer solely
for photo printing and graphics.

You also have this option on your versatile IP5000.

Again, the added features are only of value if one wants them, needs them,
or would find a use for them. I don't know what Ms. Feliz will be doing
with her printer, but her questions were primarily directed to photo and
fine arts graphic printing. None of the versatile features you mention are
of value to her for those printing tasks.

I can understand that is your opinion but one never knows what another
finds attractive.

OK, then I should revise my statement to say that she would regard them as
equally attractive or, perhaps, equally unattractive! Like that better,
Measekite? Picky, Picky. What I am saying is that you would have
difficulty telling which was printed with MIS and which with OEM inks on a
side by side comparison. You know what I meant, but you always want to get
the last word in.

 

[Burt]

Okay, I take that back about the grain. Right you are. I was referring to
the "dottiness" of the printout. I just remembered that my boss has a 2200
in his office -- I'm going to bring my loupe to work tomorrow and check on
the dot factor of his printouts on a table lamp. Will let you know what I
find.

Regarding the Epsons, indeed most photographers and graphic designers
choose
the high-end Epson inkjets because of quality issues across the board (and
this despite Epson's notorious clogging problem, so that should tell you
something.) I myself am holding out for the newly released Epson 2400
($849)
but will only get it in the fall or early winter. I need a "good enough"
printer in the meantime, something I can (and will continue) to use for
proofing, testing, quick stuff, text files, etc. I chose the Canon because
I
didn't want to deal with clogging issues (but now I'm wondering whether I
should have gotten the Epson R800 and stayed within the same printing
environment of the more expensive item I will purchase later).

I've used an HP895C until now -- which I loved -- but it's on its last
gasp
(I've had it for 6 years, it was a workhorse, never a problem, printed
photos and graphics like gangbusters -- at the time it cost $399). So I'm
not wed to Epson but the newer crop of midlevel HPs has not impressed me.
On
the high end, however, HP has come out with its DesignJet series (I hope I
have the name right), and I've been hearing good things about it for
professional use.

As to resolution, I print anywhere from 240 to 300 dpi, never lower. My
digital camera is way outdated (2 MP) (so some of the dot factor may be
coming from there????) but I never print larger than 5 x7.

5x7, uncropped, should be reasonably good. On my old epson printer the
photo printing choice for me was 720 and 1440. Try at least 600 dpi on
scans and see if there is a difference. You are probably suffering from the
2MP image having less info to send to the printer. Also, if you are making
changes in photoshop and sequentially saving those changes to jpg files you
are losing data as well.

The only problem with you plan would be if you basically abandoned the Canon
and used in so infrequently that you would end up with some clogs from
disuse! Also, Canon is coming out with pigmented ink printers soon from
what I've read. Not sure I'd try the first one they put on the market,
however, as Epson has had a chance to improve their pigment based printers
over the years. Do as Arthur Entlich for his printhead cleaning information
to have as a resource if you plan to get an epson. He updates it as the ink
formulations change so you might want to follow up with requesting an update
in the future if you buy a newer model.

 

[Derek Baker]

No. It's due Thursday. I wasn't in a big rush, my S630 still prints.

Came today as scheduled. Everything seems fine, though haven't tested the CD
printing or duplex unit yet.

 

[Arthur Entlich]

Have you ever looked at a color photographic print with a loupe? It
also has grain. In fact, it has double grain. The "grain" within the
structure of the paper itself (actually dye clouds, but most people call
them grains) and a second granular artifact from the film grain (or
color dye clouds). Does that really matter? Our eyes cannot see most
inkjet grain with current machines because the dots are just too small.
You used a loupe to do it... is that how you plan on viewing your
images? With a Loupe? If you look at a diamond closely enough you will
find it's made up of carbon atoms.

My point is just that you are better off evaluating your images at
reasonable viewing distance, since that's how you are going to look at
them. If your friends want to look at them with a loupe, fine. They
will tell you that all your photos are is a bunch of abstracted colored
dots! ;=)

Art