Thank you Keith for such a well-paced and thorough (without being overly complex or confusing) explanation and demo. I'm an artist and have just invested in a Canon PRO-300 so I can do my own prints! I'm now heading over to your fine art printing video!
Thank you Keith. You are a real goldmine for somewhat like me who is not very technical. Your expertise, and care in explaining critical aspects of your trade are easily transferable to my own practice as I now (in good measure because of your assistance) have dedicated myself to printing the best of the photos I took as an amateur in the 70's.
I just found your channel after scouring the internet for best practices to achieve quality prints on the Pro-300. You are SO informative, thank you so much for the content you provide around making prints. This is super helpful.
Thanks - If you've not seen it, do check the main [written] review of the 300 - there is more detail and a full list of everything I've done on the 300 www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-pro-300-printer-review/
Hi Keith, I own a 300 and was looking forward to this promised video. I have always printed at standard (300 ppi) - as it seemed reasonably good - I've not tried printing at Highest setting... at 600ppi, I certainly will in future. Fascinating. Now to read the accompanying article. Thank you.
I just got a P300 and aside from the Canon bugs in the pro print app and drivers with MAC Sonoma I love it. I made prints with old hp paper and new Canon Luster using the canned canon ICCs and the airprint driver on a Mac M1x laptop. The colors were very good as well as the B&W prints. I do not fuss with a calibrated monitor or how Photoshop looked on the monitor in a bright room where I edit everything. I used standard print and because of the Canon memory issues they need to fix, the resolution in the files was not that high 300 or less. I am very happy with colors and resolution from these first prints without any fooling around with iccs or anything else. (Of course I could care less about "natural" colors and my images use LUTs and many other techniques to make images look like old film or movies with color pallets far from "natural") Great videos!
Thanks - No, not much more Look at the ink dots in the written article [always where I include the real detail ;-) ] www.northlight-images.co.uk/best-canon-pro-300-driver-settings/
Super useful video, thanks Keith. In the Canon Professional Print & Layout software, there are a couple of other settings for the PRO 300 ("Clear Coating" and "Use contrast reproduction"). Have you noticed a difference when you vary those settings?
The clear coat expands use of the coating - a great way to use up the CO cart, without much improvement on many papers - I've tested this in much more detail in my PRO-1000 and PRO-2000 [written] reviews. The contrast repro is (IIRC) related to printing from Canon's DPP software - I tried to find a use for it during my original [written] review, but failed ;-)
Hi Keith, thanks for this great video and article! I have a Canon PRO-300 myself and after experimenting I also found that just sending whatever resolution you have is the best way. I have a question about the resizing you did, because this also plays a big role. Wouldn't it be better to start with the 460ppi image as the source and then make a 300ppi and 600ppi version from that? Because that would simulate a real life scenario. Anyway, thanks again!
Thanks - glad it was of interest. You raise an interesting question - the reason I strongly emphasise the 'check it for yourself' viewpoint ;-) My feeling was that starting with a huge excess of resolution, and downsizing to what I wanted to test was a better test of the driver characteristics. Any upsizing in my process would make it partly a test of my upsizing technique/software. Now yes, in actual use, I might well use upsizing - I've found, for example, that using GigaPixel AI and Sharpen AI to take a ~300 image up to 600, generates an image which prints very well, although this is more a situation I'd use for going from 200 > 600 Very much a matter of seeing what is relevant to your own work - the real aim of the article was to dispel some of the 'magic numbers' forum wisdom and get people to actually look at what mattered to them.
Great videos. In the end of October I ordered my canon pro 200, and it has yet to be shipped. I got asked if I wanted to upgrade my purchases to a pro 300. I am not going to use this printer to "make money" per say but the idea is to offer my clients the choice if they want to have a picture from a project printed out. Looking at your excellent videos I am getting a little uncertain if the pro 200 is " good enough"? I guess what I am asking is, how far would you your self be able to use the pro 200 and from what point would you ig need to upgrade to a lets say 300? I hope I make some sense :) in anywise wonderful videos I am learning a lot from you. very interesting.
I'll be doing some 200 test prints like these in due course - my feeling is that for many uses the PRO-200 is pretty good (especially with ultra glossy 'metallic' type papers. The 300 bests it for B&W and dark colours are a bit better defined - assuming the right media and profiling
Hello I only saw your video now in 2024 It has been a while since you posted it but I'm still asking .. Do you know if there is an inkt usage difference between printing in standard VS high quality ? and if yes how much ? I mean that's probably the only thing that matters. If the print takes 2 extra minutes to print it's not a big deal. But if it takes twice as much inkt per print... then it's another story I have only ever printed in standard mode and i'm really happy and impressed by the results. I could use the highest settings if you really see a difference in the real world at a normal distance and it's not costing twice as much ;) Thanks in advance
Not much differences. See the main written review, www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-pro-300-printer-review/ and especially this www.northlight-images.co.uk/best-canon-pro-300-driver-settings/
So, are we going to calculate our megapixels to print size to get the native ppi? Or does the computer do it for you? I just bought the Canon pro 300! So excited
There is no such thing as native ppi when it comes to printing... That is one of the key points here - see the more detailed [written] version at www.northlight-images.co.uk/best-canon-pro-300-driver-settings/ from www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-pro-300-printer-review/
@@KeithCooper I will read it, but I know there's not native. I mean if you have a 24 megapixel picture and you're printing a 13 x 19, you probably know off the top of your head how does digital pixels would translate to dots at a 1 to 1. You would just have to divide the resolution by the inches and then you'll get a pixels-per-inch. I was asking if we would use a calculator for that or if there's software to do it for you?. But I will read the links. Thank you so much
The simple thing is that there is no real need to do any calculations. Remember that DPI of the printer is not the same as PPI of the image Set the printer resolution in the driver and the image resolution in your editing software. In general as long as the image PPI is somewhere over 250, the print may be fine. BUT it's really about the image, editing and sharpening
Obsessing over details is something I would do, but purely for the archival purposes of photographs. If the details are generally not visible via a reasonably sized print, it seems pointless unless aiming to print large, but even then, the largest prints such as billboards, are generally viewed at a fair distance. I'm not a photographer (you can probably guess) so I was just searching to try and find a decent colour accurate printer that was easy to maintain (cheapish to refill) and found your channel. Ecotank style printers seem to be the way to go for the latter, not so sure if they are potentially a good choice when it comes to colour accuracy. Colour accurate printers seem to always require more colours for refills, which I suppose is understandable, and of course different models will give different results. Your canon 300 was one of the top listed for colour accuracy, I'm less sure about your camera and model you are using but I have no doubt it's not what you would call budget :) I wonder if you would get notably different results with your ppi test using other high grade printers. If it makes sense (prob not) I suppose the highest spec printer, will be more of a limitation than the best camera out there
Ah well, I do these tests partly for people to see whether the differences are important to them and partly to dispel assorted myths that have persisted in photo printing for many years. If colour accuracy [listed where? and by what testing methodology?] is what you want then it's all in the profiles. It's a largely meaningless concept and comparison if the printer is not used in a colour managed workflow. It's of relevance if working in pre-press or commercial print, but once again only in the context of overall colour management. I have a video coming up which looks at EcoTank models The detail test is one I've done for a range of printers. See the linked written articles which also discuss visibility and relevance in a printmaking workflow - there are no simple answers other than 'it depends...' ;-)
@@KeithCooper I'll check out your links and reviews, thanks. Photography and graphic design magazines may be best to focus on for hardware reviews, potentially using more methods to compare what they see on screen to paper. My own printer will no longer accept replacement ink (perhaps that in itself raises questions) so I thought it was time to update. It was never very good at duplicating old photographs, so I suppose the scanner's abilities also came into play. I have an old version of photoshop that still works in windows, generally used for minor editing and repair of old photos. The first place I could find that compared many printers in a table and had mentioned their methods for general print and colour accuracy was at rtings, which was useful in filtering specs and capabilities of other hardware too, but it now limits how often you can view. Thanks
Hope you find them of interest! Actually the [printer] reviews in many magazines leave much to be desired in their coverage and approach. There is a strong desire to give [spurious IMHO] ratings, and the more graphs and tables they can fit in, the better the _impression_ of expertise ;-) Comparing what you see on screen and paper is a fools errand in many cases - without a rigorous and meaningful methodology it yields data but little useful or relevant information. OK perhaps for low end cheap printers but frequently misleading as well ;-) The moment you see a percentage or star rating for a product like a printer, is the time to be suspicious of the whole review ;-)
Hello from the US, Keith! Stumbled on your channel while researching how to optimize prints, and have been enjoying your content since, so thank you. I have a question I was hoping you might be able to answer given your experience with the Pro-200 and Pro-300. I've been using a Canon IP8720 for proofing my designs, and, depending on the card, printer settings, and ICC Profile, the blacks can go from lackluster to decent. I figured the PRO-200 will yield similar results given that it is also dye based. But what about the Pro-300? For matte card being used for greetings cards that are text heavy, would the Pro-300 reign supreme for getting deeper blacks with its matte black ink? Thanks in advance.
Glad it's of interest! Ah, the key here is the coating/finish of the card, not so much the ink The 300 might be better or worse depending on the card... I only ever print on card that is meant for inkjet use - I've looked at this for some other printers, like the Epson 8550. BTW Do have a look at the written articles too, since they invariably have more detail than I can really include in the videos (they also go back nearly 20 years vs. 18 months for the videos)
@@KeithCooper Thank you for the response! I'm a day into reading your articles now. They sure are in depth, I appreciate the information. Now to find someone in my area with a Pro-300 that is willing to let me test print a few things. The hunt is on.
2 роки тому+1
Good afternoon from Spain, I have been following your interesting videos for more than a year, in fact they helped me choose my Canon Imageprograf Pro-300, which gives very good quality either in black and white (70% of my photos) or in color. Well, speaking of that printer and how to get better detail using the professional&layout app, I wanted to ask you if you have tried the "Contrast Reproduction" and "Depth Information" options and, if so, did you compare the resolts between using or not using those options? Do you think it's worth the extra time and (probably) the extra ink the printer needs? Thank you very much and greetings.
I asked Canon about this and they are features linked with their DPP image processing software. As far as I know they have no real use in a normal colour managed printing workflow. See the on-line manual for the Canon software and DPP
2 роки тому
@@KeithCooper thank you Keith for your quick response. I personally tried those printer options on some pics and I didn't observe better resolution or detail, however, I'll let you know if I find any difference on new trials.
Hi Keith, OK, after watching this video a couple of times and reading your article, I think I'm a little confused. Perhaps it's because I've never given this much thought before. Normally, I'll have my raw image edited in LR and I'll send it straight to the Professional Print & Layout software. I'll set the quality to Standard if I just want a quick print for review, or I'll set it to Highest if I'm going to frame or display. You mention PPI a few times during your video, but I've never considered it before. Should I? I'm printing up to A3+ so I always assumed that by sending my image straight from LR to the Canon software and setting quality to Highest I'd get the best quality. I get the idea about considering PPI for really large prints, but I'm not sure how it relates to my current workflow. Sorry, for the long question, but you got me thinking! :-)
The real reason for this test (and the similar one for the P700/900) was to see if sending 'excess' resolution to the printer made any difference. There is a popular idea that sending exactly 300ppi to the printer was somehow superior. I'd long thought this as out of date advice, but wanted to see for sure. I don't ever use LR, but in PS, the resolution is set whenever I decide on a size for the final print - depends on megapixels and size. So, now, if the print has more than 300ppi I just send it as is to the driver (up to 600) If the image has less, then I need to address other matters (video/articles to come!) As to the quality settings (Canon), there is not much difference with the pro-300. The high quality mode slows the head travel, and gives more accurate dot placement, and potentially better(ish) prints - Not a lot in it - Looking at the Epson tests there is a lot more real variation. To see this in a Canon I'd need to go to the pro-1000, which is of similar 'level' to the P700/900. The PRO-300 and P700 are not really 'equivalent' - the P700 should better be thought of as a 13" P900, when looking at printing specs.
@@KeithCooper Right, gotcha! Despite a couple of watches I'd missed the point that you were looking at the idea of sending exactly 300ppi was somehow superior. I'd never considered the idea of resizing my image to make sure it was 300ppi for it's destination. Also, given that I use LR I never have given the PPI any real thought. I will be interested in a future video on what to do if your image has less than 300PPI....I've always wondered how big I could go if needed. Thanks again for providing clarity. :-)
Very big - I've written loads about this in the past ;-) (remember my written articles outnumber the videos by about 10 to 1) www.northlight-images.co.uk/upsizing-and-sharpening-for-making-a-print/ Links to others in the article...
Hi Keith, can you tell me if there’s any advantage to having my printer (pro-300) connected directly to my Mac Mini using a USB C cable or using it wirelessly? It’s on my desk so I can use either and I’d probably just connect over Wi-Fi just to have one less cable but i thought I’d ask you first. Thanks.
The only issue I've come across (when using the Canon PPL software) is that if the printer is switched off for a while, then when it comes back, it may get assigned a new (different) IP address and not be seen by the PPL software (needs adding to the list again).
@@KeithCooper Ah yes, I remember you saying that in one of your videos. I’ll probably order a cable and go with that, makes sense as the printer is on the same desk. Talking of PPL, no matter what I’ve tried I can’t get it to appear in Photoshop’s Automate menu - very annoying! Works fine in LR and as a stand-alone but just not in PS.
My mix of old(er) systems is partly because I can do updates when needed, rather than just because they are there. A recent photoshop update broke some aspect of colour management on my Mac(10.15) when printing to a PRO-200 - no idea what, but at least Adobe let you roll back easily. I'll look at it some time, but I've better things to do for now ;-)
It entirely depend on how you are mounting the print. I cut custom matts so it's whatever size I want to fit my chosen crop for an image. I'd say there is no such thing as 'best'... ;-)
So, a friend of mine has this printer and sent everything to the printer from her phone. Do you know of the resolutions remain intact when printing from the phone versus printing from the desktop? I felt like they lost a ton of resolution compared to the images on my screen and were less detailed and a bit blurry.
I have one question if i may, have you any experiences with canon pixma pro1? I asking because i have one (pro1) and i considering now i change it for canon prograf pro300, because of ink price, which one printer can print cheaper one A3+ image(approximately)?
Yes, full detailed reviews of the PRO-1, PRO-1000, PRO-2000 - however these reviews were years ago (no videos, only the detailed written ones) As to costs - perhaps here will help? www.redrivercatalog.com/rr/cost-of-inkjet-printing.html
@@KeithCooper It helped little bit, it seems that is not big difference (maybe pro 200 is little better regarding costs, but there is just diy inks), how is the printers about print quality, pro 300 is newer, so is it better than pro1 or it is the same?
The lowest settings (standard vs best and 300 ppi vs 1200 ppi) is the better version (after watching the website). Which is in accordance with my 13.5 MP prints (I let my D7100 downsample the 24 MP images to 13.5 MP) on my Hewlett Packard SmartTank 559 printer. 'Best' quality outperforms 'Photo' in most cases.
Maybe on a HP559, but not on the PRO-300 prints sitting on my desk. There is not a lot in it - certainly not to the level I could see differences with the Epson P700 Resolutions above 600 ppi serve no useful purpose. The key is to experiment and see what matters for your own prints/printer - the effects are minimal but I'm happy they dispel the idea that you should re-size to a specific resolution.
@@KeithCooper I see no significant differences in the images you published on the site. There are differences but they only matter to pixel peepers. The huge prints you are comparing should be watched from at least 10 feet away.
![Epson vs Canon. What's the best 17 inch printer for you? P900 vs PRO-1100 vs P5300 [P5370]](/img/n.gif)
Keith, I never fail to learn something when I watch your video's and read your articles. Thanks again.
Thanks!
Amazingly I don't fail to learn something even watching the same video twice
Thank you Keith for such a well-paced and thorough (without being overly complex or confusing) explanation and demo. I'm an artist and have just invested in a Canon PRO-300 so I can do my own prints! I'm now heading over to your fine art printing video!
Thanks - glad it made sense ;-)
Thank you Keith. You are a real goldmine for somewhat like me who is not very technical. Your expertise, and care in explaining critical aspects of your trade are easily transferable to my own practice as I now (in good measure because of your assistance) have dedicated myself to printing the best of the photos I took as an amateur in the 70's.
Thank - glad it's if use!
I just found your channel after scouring the internet for best practices to achieve quality prints on the Pro-300.
You are SO informative, thank you so much for the content you provide around making prints. This is super helpful.
Thanks - If you've not seen it, do check the main [written] review of the 300 - there is more detail and a full list of everything I've done on the 300
www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-pro-300-printer-review/
You've challenged an unquestioned spec so well. Thank you.
Glad it was of interest!
- I've a few more printers to look at in this respect, and then there is what to do about lower image resolutions ;-)
Hi Keith, I own a 300 and was looking forward to this promised video. I have always printed at standard (300 ppi) - as it seemed reasonably good - I've not tried printing at Highest setting... at 600ppi, I certainly will in future. Fascinating. Now to read the accompanying article. Thank you.
Thanks - as ever, it's the trade-off into just how much extra detail matters 'for real'
I just got a P300 and aside from the Canon bugs in the pro print app and drivers with MAC Sonoma I love it. I made prints with old hp paper and new Canon Luster using the canned canon ICCs and the airprint driver on a Mac M1x laptop. The colors were very good as well as the B&W prints. I do not fuss with a calibrated monitor or how Photoshop looked on the monitor in a bright room where I edit everything. I used standard print and because of the Canon memory issues they need to fix, the resolution in the files was not that high 300 or less. I am very happy with colors and resolution from these first prints without any fooling around with iccs or anything else. (Of course I could care less about "natural" colors and my images use LUTs and many other techniques to make images look like old film or movies with color pallets far from "natural") Great videos!
Thanks - glad it was of help
Thanks Keith this is really useful. Does using the highest quality instead of standard going to use significantly more ink?
Thanks - No, not much more
Look at the ink dots in the written article [always where I include the real detail ;-) ]
www.northlight-images.co.uk/best-canon-pro-300-driver-settings/
@@KeithCooper thanks Keith, so appreciate your sharing of your expertise
Super useful video, thanks Keith. In the Canon Professional Print & Layout software, there are a couple of other settings for the PRO 300 ("Clear Coating" and "Use contrast reproduction"). Have you noticed a difference when you vary those settings?
The clear coat expands use of the coating - a great way to use up the CO cart, without much improvement on many papers - I've tested this in much more detail in my PRO-1000 and PRO-2000 [written] reviews.
The contrast repro is (IIRC) related to printing from Canon's DPP software - I tried to find a use for it during my original [written] review, but failed ;-)
Hi Keith, thanks for this great video and article! I have a Canon PRO-300 myself and after experimenting I also found that just sending whatever resolution you have is the best way. I have a question about the resizing you did, because this also plays a big role. Wouldn't it be better to start with the 460ppi image as the source and then make a 300ppi and 600ppi version from that? Because that would simulate a real life scenario. Anyway, thanks again!
Thanks - glad it was of interest.
You raise an interesting question - the reason I strongly emphasise the 'check it for yourself' viewpoint ;-)
My feeling was that starting with a huge excess of resolution, and downsizing to what I wanted to test was a better test of the driver characteristics. Any upsizing in my process would make it partly a test of my upsizing technique/software.
Now yes, in actual use, I might well use upsizing - I've found, for example, that using GigaPixel AI and Sharpen AI to take a ~300 image up to 600, generates an image which prints very well, although this is more a situation I'd use for going from 200 > 600
Very much a matter of seeing what is relevant to your own work - the real aim of the article was to dispel some of the 'magic numbers' forum wisdom and get people to actually look at what mattered to them.
Great videos. In the end of October I ordered my canon pro 200, and it has yet to be shipped. I got asked if I wanted to upgrade my purchases to a pro 300. I am not going to use this printer to "make money" per say but the idea is to offer my clients the choice if they want to have a picture from a project printed out. Looking at your excellent videos I am getting a little uncertain if the pro 200 is " good enough"? I guess what I am asking is, how far would you your self be able to use the pro 200 and from what point would you ig need to upgrade to a lets say 300? I hope I make some sense :) in anywise wonderful videos I am learning a lot from you. very interesting.
I'll be doing some 200 test prints like these in due course - my feeling is that for many uses the PRO-200 is pretty good (especially with ultra glossy 'metallic' type papers.
The 300 bests it for B&W and dark colours are a bit better defined - assuming the right media and profiling
Hello
I only saw your video now in 2024
It has been a while since you posted it but I'm still asking ..
Do you know if there is an inkt usage difference between printing in standard VS high quality ? and if yes how much ?
I mean that's probably the only thing that matters. If the print takes 2 extra minutes to print it's not a big deal.
But if it takes twice as much inkt per print... then it's another story
I have only ever printed in standard mode and i'm really happy and impressed by the results. I could use the highest settings if you really see a difference in the real world at a normal distance and it's not costing twice as much ;)
Thanks in advance
Not much differences. See the main written review,
www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-pro-300-printer-review/
and especially this
www.northlight-images.co.uk/best-canon-pro-300-driver-settings/
So, are we going to calculate our megapixels to print size to get the native ppi? Or does the computer do it for you?
I just bought the Canon pro 300!
So excited
There is no such thing as native ppi when it comes to printing...
That is one of the key points here - see the more detailed [written] version at
www.northlight-images.co.uk/best-canon-pro-300-driver-settings/
from
www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-pro-300-printer-review/
@@KeithCooper I will read it, but I know there's not native. I mean if you have a 24 megapixel picture and you're printing a 13 x 19, you probably know off the top of your head how does digital pixels would translate to dots at a 1 to 1. You would just have to divide the resolution by the inches and then you'll get a pixels-per-inch. I was asking if we would use a calculator for that or if there's software to do it for you?. But I will read the links. Thank you so much
The simple thing is that there is no real need to do any calculations.
Remember that DPI of the printer is not the same as PPI of the image
Set the printer resolution in the driver and the image resolution in your editing software.
In general as long as the image PPI is somewhere over 250, the print may be fine. BUT it's really about the image, editing and sharpening
Obsessing over details is something I would do, but purely for the archival purposes of photographs. If the details are generally not visible via a reasonably sized print, it seems pointless unless aiming to print large, but even then, the largest prints such as billboards, are generally viewed at a fair distance. I'm not a photographer (you can probably guess) so I was just searching to try and find a decent colour accurate printer that was easy to maintain (cheapish to refill) and found your channel. Ecotank style printers seem to be the way to go for the latter, not so sure if they are potentially a good choice when it comes to colour accuracy. Colour accurate printers seem to always require more colours for refills, which I suppose is understandable, and of course different models will give different results. Your canon 300 was one of the top listed for colour accuracy, I'm less sure about your camera and model you are using but I have no doubt it's not what you would call budget :) I wonder if you would get notably different results with your ppi test using other high grade printers. If it makes sense (prob not) I suppose the highest spec printer, will be more of a limitation than the best camera out there
Ah well, I do these tests partly for people to see whether the differences are important to them and partly to dispel assorted myths that have persisted in photo printing for many years.
If colour accuracy [listed where? and by what testing methodology?] is what you want then it's all in the profiles. It's a largely meaningless concept and comparison if the printer is not used in a colour managed workflow. It's of relevance if working in pre-press or commercial print, but once again only in the context of overall colour management.
I have a video coming up which looks at EcoTank models
The detail test is one I've done for a range of printers. See the linked written articles which also discuss visibility and relevance in a printmaking workflow - there are no simple answers other than 'it depends...' ;-)
@@KeithCooper I'll check out your links and reviews, thanks. Photography and graphic design magazines may be best to focus on for hardware reviews, potentially using more methods to compare what they see on screen to paper.
My own printer will no longer accept replacement ink (perhaps that in itself raises questions) so I thought it was time to update. It was never very good at duplicating old photographs, so I suppose the scanner's abilities also came into play. I have an old version of photoshop that still works in windows, generally used for minor editing and repair of old photos.
The first place I could find that compared many printers in a table and had mentioned their methods for general print and colour accuracy was at rtings, which was useful in filtering specs and capabilities of other hardware too, but it now limits how often you can view. Thanks
Hope you find them of interest!
Actually the [printer] reviews in many magazines leave much to be desired in their coverage and approach. There is a strong desire to give [spurious IMHO] ratings, and the more graphs and tables they can fit in, the better the _impression_ of expertise ;-)
Comparing what you see on screen and paper is a fools errand in many cases - without a rigorous and meaningful methodology it yields data but little useful or relevant information. OK perhaps for low end cheap printers but frequently misleading as well ;-)
The moment you see a percentage or star rating for a product like a printer, is the time to be suspicious of the whole review ;-)
Hello from the US, Keith! Stumbled on your channel while researching how to optimize prints, and have been enjoying your content since, so thank you. I have a question I was hoping you might be able to answer given your experience with the Pro-200 and Pro-300. I've been using a Canon IP8720 for proofing my designs, and, depending on the card, printer settings, and ICC Profile, the blacks can go from lackluster to decent. I figured the PRO-200 will yield similar results given that it is also dye based. But what about the Pro-300? For matte card being used for greetings cards that are text heavy, would the Pro-300 reign supreme for getting deeper blacks with its matte black ink? Thanks in advance.
Glad it's of interest!
Ah, the key here is the coating/finish of the card, not so much the ink
The 300 might be better or worse depending on the card...
I only ever print on card that is meant for inkjet use - I've looked at this for some other printers, like the Epson 8550.
BTW Do have a look at the written articles too, since they invariably have more detail than I can really include in the videos (they also go back nearly 20 years vs. 18 months for the videos)
@@KeithCooper Thank you for the response! I'm a day into reading your articles now. They sure are in depth, I appreciate the information. Now to find someone in my area with a Pro-300 that is willing to let me test print a few things. The hunt is on.
Good afternoon from Spain, I have been following your interesting videos for more than a year, in fact they helped me choose my Canon Imageprograf Pro-300, which gives very good quality either in black and white (70% of my photos) or in color.
Well, speaking of that printer and how to get better detail using the professional&layout app, I wanted to ask you if you have tried the "Contrast Reproduction" and "Depth Information" options and, if so, did you compare the resolts between using or not using those options? Do you think it's worth the extra time and (probably) the extra ink the printer needs?
Thank you very much and greetings.
I asked Canon about this and they are features linked with their DPP image processing software. As far as I know they have no real use in a normal colour managed printing workflow.
See the on-line manual for the Canon software and DPP
@@KeithCooper thank you Keith for your quick response. I personally tried those printer options on some pics and I didn't observe better resolution or detail, however, I'll let you know if I find any difference on new trials.
Hi Keith, OK, after watching this video a couple of times and reading your article, I think I'm a little confused. Perhaps it's because I've never given this much thought before. Normally, I'll have my raw image edited in LR and I'll send it straight to the Professional Print & Layout software. I'll set the quality to Standard if I just want a quick print for review, or I'll set it to Highest if I'm going to frame or display. You mention PPI a few times during your video, but I've never considered it before. Should I? I'm printing up to A3+ so I always assumed that by sending my image straight from LR to the Canon software and setting quality to Highest I'd get the best quality. I get the idea about considering PPI for really large prints, but I'm not sure how it relates to my current workflow. Sorry, for the long question, but you got me thinking! :-)
The real reason for this test (and the similar one for the P700/900) was to see if sending 'excess' resolution to the printer made any difference. There is a popular idea that sending exactly 300ppi to the printer was somehow superior. I'd long thought this as out of date advice, but wanted to see for sure.
I don't ever use LR, but in PS, the resolution is set whenever I decide on a size for the final print - depends on megapixels and size.
So, now, if the print has more than 300ppi I just send it as is to the driver (up to 600)
If the image has less, then I need to address other matters (video/articles to come!)
As to the quality settings (Canon), there is not much difference with the pro-300. The high quality mode slows the head travel, and gives more accurate dot placement, and potentially better(ish) prints - Not a lot in it - Looking at the Epson tests there is a lot more real variation. To see this in a Canon I'd need to go to the pro-1000, which is of similar 'level' to the P700/900. The PRO-300 and P700 are not really 'equivalent' - the P700 should better be thought of as a 13" P900, when looking at printing specs.
@@KeithCooper Right, gotcha! Despite a couple of watches I'd missed the point that you were looking at the idea of sending exactly 300ppi was somehow superior. I'd never considered the idea of resizing my image to make sure it was 300ppi for it's destination. Also, given that I use LR I never have given the PPI any real thought. I will be interested in a future video on what to do if your image has less than 300PPI....I've always wondered how big I could go if needed. Thanks again for providing clarity. :-)
Very big - I've written loads about this in the past ;-) (remember my written articles outnumber the videos by about 10 to 1)
www.northlight-images.co.uk/upsizing-and-sharpening-for-making-a-print/
Links to others in the article...
Do you use the Photoshop profile, or LR (Lightroom), or do you use the printer's profile at the time of printing?
Hi Keith, can you tell me if there’s any advantage to having my printer (pro-300) connected directly to my Mac Mini using a USB C cable or using it wirelessly? It’s on my desk so I can use either and I’d probably just connect over Wi-Fi just to have one less cable but i thought I’d ask you first. Thanks.
The only issue I've come across (when using the Canon PPL software) is that if the printer is switched off for a while, then when it comes back, it may get assigned a new (different) IP address and not be seen by the PPL software (needs adding to the list again).
@@KeithCooper Ah yes, I remember you saying that in one of your videos. I’ll probably order a cable and go with that, makes sense as the printer is on the same desk. Talking of PPL, no matter what I’ve tried I can’t get it to appear in Photoshop’s Automate menu - very annoying! Works fine in LR and as a stand-alone but just not in PS.
My mix of old(er) systems is partly because I can do updates when needed, rather than just because they are there. A recent photoshop update broke some aspect of colour management on my Mac(10.15) when printing to a PRO-200 - no idea what, but at least Adobe let you roll back easily. I'll look at it some time, but I've better things to do for now ;-)
What are the best border measurements when framing a A2 and A3 print. I mean for black and white or color landscape photographs.?
It entirely depend on how you are mounting the print.
I cut custom matts so it's whatever size I want to fit my chosen crop for an image.
I'd say there is no such thing as 'best'... ;-)
Thanks very interesting
Glad you enjoyed it
So, a friend of mine has this printer and sent everything to the printer from her phone. Do you know of the resolutions remain intact when printing from the phone versus printing from the desktop? I felt like they lost a ton of resolution compared to the images on my screen and were less detailed and a bit blurry.
Sorry - I'm not the person to ask. I include phone connectivity in my reviews purely as a 'proof of concept' ;-)
you likely are just printing a 72dpi print when sending from your phone
I have one question if i may, have you any experiences with canon pixma pro1? I asking because i have one (pro1) and i considering now i change it for canon prograf pro300, because of ink price, which one printer can print cheaper one A3+ image(approximately)?
Yes, full detailed reviews of the PRO-1, PRO-1000, PRO-2000 - however these reviews were years ago (no videos, only the detailed written ones)
As to costs - perhaps here will help?
www.redrivercatalog.com/rr/cost-of-inkjet-printing.html
@@KeithCooper It helped little bit, it seems that is not big difference (maybe pro 200 is little better regarding costs, but there is just diy inks), how is the printers about print quality, pro 300 is newer, so is it better than pro1 or it is the same?
The lowest settings (standard vs best and 300 ppi vs 1200 ppi) is the better version (after watching the website). Which is in accordance with my 13.5 MP prints (I let my D7100 downsample the 24 MP images to 13.5 MP) on my Hewlett Packard SmartTank 559 printer. 'Best' quality outperforms 'Photo' in most cases.
Maybe on a HP559, but not on the PRO-300 prints sitting on my desk.
There is not a lot in it - certainly not to the level I could see differences with the Epson P700
Resolutions above 600 ppi serve no useful purpose.
The key is to experiment and see what matters for your own prints/printer - the effects are minimal but I'm happy they dispel the idea that you should re-size to a specific resolution.
@@KeithCooper I see no significant differences in the images you published on the site. There are differences but they only matter to pixel peepers.
The huge prints you are comparing should be watched from at least 10 feet away.