The Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer
(Hereafter “PRO-1000” for short)
What’s in a name? Canon manufactures several series of printers. This printer features considerable technological innovation and it sits within the Canon imagePROGRAF series, not to be confused with Canon’s Pixma Pro series. So wherever you see reference here to the “Pro-1000”– the subject of this review, please remember it is shorthand for an imagePROGRAF model, not a Pixma Pro.
For quite some time now inkjet printing technology has reached a stage of maturity whereby it’s fair to say that “the printer is as good as the printer”. If the print-maker delivers a well-prepared file to the printer, it will deliver – and really well. Readers may recall that I made essentially the same point when I reviewed the Epson SureColor P800 printer last summer, being their first new 17-inch entry replacing the 3880.
A Short Video Introduction With Kevin Raber and Mark Segal
Now Canon has issued the image PROGRAF PRO-1000 17-inch desktop that establishes itself as a serious contender in this niche. Canon has put a new inkset and new technologies into this printer; it is the first in a new line of image PROGRAF models, to be expanded with wider format printers that will be introduced at WPPI in the near future. As readers would have surmised from Kevin’s article introducing LuLa’s renewed emphasis on printing, we thought it important to examine this new printer and tell you what we think of it. (note that in the linked article you can see the set-up of the printer as well as the Canon PRO-1000 print head prior to being installed. In a nutshell, we think it’s a fine printer with a lot going for it. It has every appearance of being a very solid machine, the print quality is superb, the in-built features are most interesting and the user-friendliness is very good. For example and starting from “scratch”, initial set-up is both very well documented and easy to implement. I have no hesitation recommending this printer to anyone who’s serious about print-making, and satisfied with maximum print dimensions of 17×23.4 inches.
The conclusion of this article out of the way (if you’re in a hurry), for those wanting to read on, let’s look at what this printer does and some aspects of how to use it.
Reviewing a printer, like reviewing paper, is difficult because what matters most is the results and results have an important subjective element. You almost need to see and handle the prints to really know the quality; but you obviously can’t do that from an article on the Internet. To help overcome this inevitable problem, I use both objective and subjective evaluation approaches to address the fundamental factors about print quality: gamut (how big is the box of crayons it can make colours with), resolution (how sharply can it reproduce fine detail), gradations (how smooth are the tonal transitions in skies, skin tones, shadows), accuracy (does the print resemble in tone and hue what I see on my soft-proofed display) and maximum black (the blacker the maximum black the better, because this allows for rendering more refined shadow detail in the very dark portion of the tonal range and richer-looking blacks).
Secondly, I look at usability features – is the printer a pleasure or a pain to use, and are there tips for making it as pleasant as it can be. This category of questions covers factors such as paper dimensions and paper feeds, use of third party papers, the printer driver, ancillary software and printer maintenance. I shall have a few things to say about all of the above.
Canon USA made a printer and several Canon paper types available to Kevin in Indianapolis where I did most of the testing. Thanks also to Canon Canada for hosting me several times at their printer lab in Mississauga Ontario for some follow-up work, and for lending me a printer to complete verifications. After reading the profiles for the provided Canon papers (Pro Luster, Pro Semi-Gloss and Pro Premium Matte), I determined that the Luster and Semi Gloss are close enough to focus on the Pro Luster for the gloss category and the Pro Premium Matte paper for the matte category. I also tested Canson Baryta Photographique and Ilford Gold Fibre Silk in this printer for reasons given below. During this testing I made quite a few prints and many measurements. I shall report the most insightful outcomes in this article.
Gamut and maximum Black depend largely on the inks, the profiles, the paper and how the printer lays down ink on paper. I evaluate the gamut and the maximum black by reading the profile data with ColorThink Pro. I examined the Canon profiles for their own papers, as well as profiles for Canson Baryta Photographique (CBP) and Ilford Gold Fibre Silk (IGFS). I also measure the Black and the dark shadow tones that are printed on paper, as this is the output relevant to print appreciation.
CBP is of interest because Canon provides Canson’s profile for this paper and the Pro-1000. In fact, a very nice feature of this printer – Canon provides a number of PRO-1000 profiles for third party papers which you can obtain from the Canon website and load into your OS Profiles folder. The current ones are shown in Figure 2 below. Canon advises that they will be adding more profiles for other third party papers. I really appreciate Canon’s openness to actually facilitate the use of third party papers.
IGFS is of interest to me as a popular very wide gamut Baryta luster paper that I use extensively for my own printing; it is also very good for comparing prints from different printers based on the same media.
Figure 3 shows the data on comparative colour gamuts of several papers profiled for this printer, compared with similar papers used in the Epson 4900 and the P800.
Quick Reminder on Reading L*a*b* Values
L*: Scale is 0 (black) to 100 (White).
a*: Measures from pure Magenta (+127) to pure green (-128).
b*: Measures from pure Yellow (+127) to pure Blue (-128).
a*=b*=0 is neutral Gray.
For a* and b*, the higher the absolute number (forget the “-“), the more saturated the colour.
As I noted in my P800 Review, the 4900 remains the gamut king at the least in respect of IGFS paper. Gamut-wise, the PRO-1000 and the P800 are more similar to each other than is either of those models to the 4900. The PRO-1000 on the whole shows moderately more gamut for the same paper compared with the P800 – but not uniformly. Gamut shapes differ, hence there is no one printer/paper combination that has more colour gamut in all three primaries.
This, however, is the point at which I need to caution about how much to read into this data. The prints on the same Luster media from all three printers “on the whole” come out looking so similar to each other that I found it necessary to write the Printer/Paper combination on the back of each sheet to keep them sorted. In other words, numerical differences can seem big or small in our minds, without necessarily corresponding to differences we see looking at the prints.
There are two reasons for this dichotomy: firstly, a great many photos don’t need the huge gamut of an Epson 4900 to look great, and secondly, where gamut differences between printers/papers are not large, even to seasoned observers (and we did some “blind tasting” discussed below) telltale signs of which prints come from which printer are few and far between. As I mentioned in my Epson P800 review, how one edits the files makes a far bigger difference to print appearance than any of this data – except for the difference between Luster paper and Matte paper, where the statistical gamut differences are very large and readily noticeable by comparing prints. Perhaps of some interest, my custom profiles for the PRO-1000, IGFS and Canon ProLuster paper, show the widest gamut of all the papers I measured for the PRO-1000. I make my custom profiles with an X-Rite Pulse Elite spectrophotometer and software, which X-Rite discontinued some years ago as part of its counter-productive obsolescence programming. These profiles perform as well as i1Profiler 2 profiles I have ordered from a professional provider for comparison testing.
Figures 4 and 5 show the gamut maps (from ColorThink Pro) for the Canon papers’ Canon profiles. (The semi-gloss readings being identical to the Pro Luster, the mapping of the two overlap exactly.)
The Matte paper gamut exceeds the Luster only over a small portion of the gamut map.
Based on the profile readings reported in Figure 3, the Canon PRO-1000 shows the deepest black of those compared. That said, whether anyone would actually see a meaningful difference between values of 1 and 3 is questionable. Nonetheless, in theory at least, the lower the value the better, because it means that tones within that very dark range are less likely to be “squished”. For example, if the darkest value for the PK papers happens to be 4 (e.g. IGFS in an Epson 4900), any values in the range of 1, 2, 3 are squished to 4 because the profile can’t render anything less than L*4.
At a minimum value of L*4, when doing a direct comparison of output, one does begin to notice (in the printer test target image) that the Black is not quite as intense as that having a value of L*1; but I must emphasize – you need to be looking comparatively and carefully, being mindful of what you’re looking for in order to see it. It doesn’t hit you in the face. What does hit you in the face is the Matte paper minimum black of L*18 or so, compared with any of the others. This doesn’t mean matte paper is somehow inferior – it suits some subject matter beautifully, just not as “Black”.
I did not report data on the neutrality of the Black and White points as read from the profiles, largely because it is unremarkable. The majority of a* and b* values (L*a*b*) are 0, while some are 1 or 2. We’ll be looking further into grayscale neutrality in the discussion of real outputs below.
In discussing real outputs, one of the first questions that come to mind is whether the printer is actually laying down the recipe the print-maker ordered-up. We get an indicative evaluation of this by printing a target (using Absolute Rendering Intent) with patches of known file values, such as the X-Rite ColorChecker (Figure 6 – in our case augmented with some additional grayscale patches), measuring the colour values of the patches with a high quality calibrated spectrophotometer and comparing these measurements with the original file values. The smaller the differences, the more accurately the printer/profile combination is rendering these colours.
For example, based on Bruce Lindbloom’s L*a*b* values for the 24-patch GMCC, we know that the L*a*b* file value of red (third row, third patch from the left) is supposed to be 42.1, 53.38, 28.19. With my custom profile for the Epson 4900/IGFS paper, the measured value I obtained was [42.1, 54.67, 28.13]. The absolute differences between the file values and the printed values are [0.1, 1.29, 0.06], producing a dE for the colour as whole of 1.3 (which is pretty good).
Using an Excel spreadsheet, do this 24 times over (once for each patch), compute the average of the 24 per-colour dE and the result is the overall dE for the chart. Using this very basic version of dE measurement, an overall result of 2.0 or less should be considered highly satisfactory in respect of “unremarkable inaccuracy”; even up to 3.0 is pretty good. The best result I ever achieved making these measurements is for this 4900/IGFS combination (overall dE=1.07), where the whole calculation set is shown in Figure 7.
Before getting too excited about or overly reliant on these numbers, there are at least three important qualifications to bear in mind:
(1) Only 24 patches are being measured. The printer can produce millions of colours, hence a patch set like this can be only of indicative value. There may a much larger optimal number of patches for creating a better representative sample of colours, but if there were I don’t know it and the work required to produce a result is directly proportional to the amount of measuring one needs to do.
(2) Output from most spectrophotometers varies. This cuts in two ways. Firstly, there is measurement variance of the same patch with the same instrument taking one reading after another (which can be mitigated taking many readings and averaging them) and secondly, inter-instrument variance – for example, ideally the instrument used for taking the measurements should be the same instrument used for making the profile. With custom profiling one can do this; otherwise not.
(3) The dE formula used is the most basic variant and does not take into account how human visual perception of colour differences could vary between colours – using dE(1976) each colour has the same weight.
In sum, I consider this kind of testing to be of comparative indicative value, and not the last word on perceived colour accuracy.
A lot of introduction (but necessary) to convey a few simple outcomes: the Canon PRO-1000 printer can score pretty high on this test.
The result I obtained from the PRO-1000 using Canon Pro Luster paper with my custom profile is excellent; the result from Canon’s packaged profile somewhat less so – to be expected, because it is a canned profile most likely made with a different instrument than the one I use for measuring outcomes. Small differences between these results are insignificant in light of both the above-mentioned qualifications on the procedure itself, and the fact that in real world prints, many of these differences would be hard to see, even looking for them. The bottom line here is that using good ICC profiles in a good colour management set-up from the monitor to the printer/paper combination, one should expect quite accurate results from this printer.
Turning to the more limited field of measurement for Black and White rendition, I use one or both of two sources: the supplementary B&W batches at the bottom row of the target in Figure 6, or the B&W ramp of patches in the Outback printer target shown in Figure 8.
The black point is the circled black patch in the upper right, and the shadow/highlight ramps are the circled area at the bottom of the target. The table below shows the maximum Black values and the average of the a* and b* values of the patches in the two ramps of Figure 8 (shadows and highlights).
The first row of data labelled “K” is the deepest L* value of Black that the Pro-1000 reproduced on the respective paper/profile combination, the best result being a stellar 0.94 for Canon Pro-Luster paper printed with Printer Color Management in Canon’s B&W driver mode. This is the deepest printed Black I’ve ever seen on any printer I’ve tested. For comparison, I also printed the same ramp by converting the RGB target to B&W using a B&W Adjustment Layer in Photoshop with Photoshop Color Management and the resulting Black level is 1.53, while that from the RGB file with no conversion is 1.64. All are fine results. These levels of Black rendition assure a very rich fulsome Black and ample room for shadow detail in the tonal range immediately above. Of course for the matte paper, maximum black is only at L* 16.71, which is quite typical for MK papers. MK papers simply do not deliver as deep a black as PK papers can. The “a” and “b” numbers show the deviance from zero for each of the two colour dimensions in the L*a*b* colour model. For these dimensions, the value 0 is neutral (gray).
The number in the yellow box is the average absolute deviation from zero of the a* and b* values for all the patches in the two measured ranges for each paper/profile. This data indicates that on the whole the PRO-1000 preserves neutrality very well in the shadows and highlights. (By the way, the PRO-1000 Manual indicates that B&W mode may also use non-B&W inks.) The best overall outcome was for IGFS using my custom profile (0.55). The highlights ramp values for Canon Luster emerged to be relatively cool, ranging between -2.16~-2.22 (although shown as absolute values in the Figure 9 table), reflecting the underlying tone of that paper.
OK – we’ve seen almost enough with targets, data and profile graphics to indicate that we should expect fine prints of real world photographs from this printer, and indeed we get them. This discussion will now focus on outcomes (prints) and printer features. The outcomes of interest are the usual – colour gamut, smoothness of tonal gradations, tonal separation in the deep shadow zone, rendition of fine detail, and Black and White (BW) rendition.
Starting with colour gamut, and reverting back to the discussion around Figure 3 about the extent to which statistical gamut differences (measured from profiles) matter to the appearance of real photos on paper, I said back there “not much”. But that didn’t mean to say “none at all”. So I would first like to show the exceptional kind of gamut condition in which there is a real difference between the Epson 4900 (with its Orange and Green inks) on the one hand, versus the Canon PRO-1000 and the Epson P800 on the other hand, which do not have these inks. After this demo, I’ll discuss the 98% or so of photos for which one would be hard put to see meaningful differences arising from gamut volume data between these three printers for the same wide gamut paper (in my case IGFS).
The exceptional gamut rendition conditions are very small ranges of brilliant green and dark yellow, which can benefit from the 4900 gamut. I’ve looked at this with both “real world photographs” and Andrew Rodney’s printer evaluation target (especially the balls at the bottom – indeed a “ballsy” torture test ☺). The first real world photograph is the green forest photo from Bill Atkinson’s printer test page. I printed it “as is” on IGFS (i.e. no adjustments except selection of the correct profile for each printer). Figure 10A-C shows this rendered (my profiles) for the Epson 4900, Canon PRO-1000 and Epson P800 printers. I scanned the actual prints in an Epson V850 using SilverFast Ai8 Studio without making any tone or colour adjustments. Hence it is all “unadulterated” printer output (except for JPEG conversion and resampling) from the original file.
Look carefully at the very brilliant green areas and you will see the difference between the 4900 and the other two printers, the Canon Pro1000 being slightly more vibrant than the Epson P800.
The second example (Figure 11) is from a photograph of a bird (copyright), which Margie Wagner of Wildnaturephotos.com kindly provided for use in this article. I rendered this example as above. Look particularly just under the bird’s eyes.
I have not provided the example for the dark yellows because the differences are too subtle to be rendered meaningfully here. However, I do provide the results of printing Andrew Rodney’s image of the balls (Figure 12). Look carefully and come to your own conclusions. (My conclusions: the most obvious difference is with Green, and that has a diminished impact on Cyan; the rest of it seems pretty much awash.)
Gamut differences do not come into play for the twelve real-world test photos (all © Mark D Segal) I made in all three printers, shown in Figures 13 to 24. These are all from raw files made with my Sony a6000, Zeiss/Sony 16-70mm lens, processed in Adobe Lightroom and printed on Ilford Gold Fibre Silk using my custom profiles.
Purposes: Monochrome tonality, textures rendition, highlight and shadow detail.
Purposes: As above.
Purposes: Overall sharpness, shadow detail, quality of greens and blues; quality of blue tonal gradation.
Purposes: As above.
Purposes: Reds, Highlight retention, shadow detail.
Purposes: Varieties of Yellows, modeling of clouds, evening sky, shadow detail.
Purposes: Green, Yellows, texture and detail rendition.
Purposes: Contrast rendition, shadow detail, texture rendition, overall sharpness, quality of Blue.
Purposes: Orange, orangey-red, purples, sky gradation.
Purposes: Subtlety of cloud and sky tones.
Purposes: Evaluation of orange, violets, purples, subtlety of tonal distinction in the shadow areas.
Purposes: Rendition of intense orange highlights, subtlety of tonal gradation in shaded areas; tonal gradation of the evening sky.
To evaluate these prints, I noted the provenance of each on the back and invited three very seasoned and astute printmakers to individually blind-taste them and tell me which they liked best, or whether they considered any perceived differences to be “substantive”. The evaluation criteria were for colour vibrancy and realism, subtlety of tonal rendition, smoothness of tonal gradations, highlight control, quality of shadow detail, perceived sharpness and sharpness of high density texture rendition.
The overall conclusion of these blind tastings was that any of the photographers would be very pleased with any of these prints seen in isolation. Seen side by side, all of them had to look at each photo long and hard to detect differentiating factors leading to a preferred rendition.
There was no unanimity between them about which prints they preferred from which printer. Interestingly, one had more preferred prints from the Epson P800, another from the Canon PRO-1000, but the prints from the Epson 4900 less often made it into the preferred category. Finally, one found most of the prints “awash”. All of them emphasized that they were basing their preferences on perception of quite subtle differences, such that seen independently any of these prints would earn a pass for high quality. An important implication I could derive from these observations (because I made the prints) is that most of the subtle differences between the prints are not the result of hard-wired printer-related differences, but rather can be eliminated by yet more careful tone and colour adjustments.
A matter of some interest is the fundamental difference of ink laydown technology (thermal bubble versus Piezo-electric) between Canon and Epson professional printers, and whether this makes a perceptible difference to perceived sharpness/detail rendition.
There are different ways of evaluating such differences, and here I confine it to evidence from real world photographs, because this is what matters to 99% of those interested. One method is just to look at the prints from the same file side by side with no visual assists and see whether they look as sharp and well defined as each other. This is the simplest possible common sense approach and the one I like best. On this basis, on the whole for “sharpness” and fine texture rendition they are indistinguishable.
Another approach is to “dot peep” – use a loupe to see whether important differences exist that are otherwise unseen. This then raises a question about how powerful a loupe to use. Generally, I find beyond 10X not very useful because with very powerful loupes the printer dot structure interferes with an appreciation of image detail. I used a 7X Peak Aspherical loupe and found the rendition of detail pretty much the same between all three printers.
I think these outcomes simply attest to an observation I made above that by now inkjet printing technology has fully matured and the Canon PRO-1000 is up there with the best of them.
I turn now to usability features that I find important or remarkable with the Canon PRO-1000.
The first has to be the paper feeds. The top feed is for lighter papers and the rear feed for the heavier fine art papers. I made quite a few prints from both feeds with this printer over a period of several days and I have to say I have never used easier or more reliable paper feeds than those on the PRO-1000. The experience was flawless every time. I did not get one paper skew message. For the top feed, one simply places the paper into the receptacle and upon triggering the print the vacuum system takes over to smoothly move the paper through the printer and keep it flat while printing. It can be set to ON or OFF. For the rear feed, one only needs to make sure to push the paper forward till it encounters resistance, and the printer takes it over from there. When using the rear feed there is a minor nuisance of having to move around to the front of the printer and press a confirmation button for it to print, but this is no big deal. One wonders what the point of it is. There is also a paper thickness control (Head Height), which has four levels of user-controllable adjustment for avoiding scratch marks on the paper.
In order to make borderless prints with fine art matte papers, in the printer driver dialog, after selecting the media type and the paper size, it is necessary to go to “Print Options” and check the box that says :”Cancel the safety margin regulation for paper size”. A warning message will pop up. Read it to make sure you won’t be fussed, then click OK, and back in “Print Options” click OK again. Alternatively, using Print Studio Pro as the print interface avoids this issue altogether.” (modified – corrected 3/18/15)
The size limitation is pretty firm. We tried fooling the printer into printing longer than the maximum permissible size and it simply wouldn’t cooperate. Darn. Some folks are fussed about this for good reason. I’ll explain. The maximum length the Canon driver allows is 23.39 inches. The carriage width is 17 inches. That provides an aspect ratio of 1.376, forgetting about print margins. All people using cameras that make a 36*24mm raw file have an aspect ratio of 1.5. To take full advantage of both the “full frame” aspect ratio and the 17 inch paper width, the length should be no less than 17*1.5 = 25.5 inches. By confining it to 23.39 inches, one loses the usefulness of paper width = 17 – (23.39/1.5) = 1.4 inches. Now, all these calculations get altered once one introduces uniform margins on all four sides, but the general complaint is valid. I recommend that if technically feasible Canon should change the maximum paper length in the next firmware upgrade.
At some future time there may be a workaround: If and when it supports the PRO-1000 printer, use LaserSoft Imaging’s PrinTao 8 application (recently reviewed on Luminous-Landscape), which bypasses the printer driver and allows users to print very long lengths of paper. I say “may be”, because LSI is considering PrinTao 8 support for this printer, including the application’s conventional feature of enabling long print lengths. We have no estimated time of arrival just now, but I’m encouraged that it’s very much “on their radar”.
Printer Linearization: when setting up a new printer or upon seeing abnormal output any time thereafter, it is always good to do a linearization (calibration) to ensure the print head is laying down the ink with the correct density across the sheet. For many printers this is a manual process of printing and inspecting patches and entering the patch number using the printer control panel for each of the least broken patches in the series. Canon doesn’t trust that users will necessarily get this right, so they designed an internal self-calibration process that does this with sensors automatically. The user only need trigger the procedure. This is very cool indeed.
Profiling: While these professional printers are built to a high degree of uniformity from unit to unit, it can be that the OEM provided profiles may not be optimal for your particular unit. To cater for this potential issue without the user needing to buy any external profiling software, the printer has an in-built automated profiling capability that works with a set of printed patches and internal sensors to tweak the provided profiles. Also very cool.
Job Data: Unlike some other printers where there seems to have been a conscious effort to prevent users from directly measuring the cost of ink for a print job, Canon is making this transparent with a firmware feature that will become available in the near future. As it was not available at the time of testing, I cannot describe further what it does or how it works. But the very fact that the manufacturer is actually providing software to provide this insight is to say the least a refreshing piece of transparency. I hope the calculations they provide will also include for ink used in under-the-hood cleaning cycles designed to mitigate clogging.
Photo-Black vs. Matte Black ink: The PRO-1000 has completely separate channels for the PK and Mk inks, therefore no switching with its associated time and ink wastage is necessary.
Clog Management: All pigment inkjet printers develop nozzle clogs. The important issue is how they are managed. The PRO-1000 includes several lines of defense for dealing with clogs. Firstly, according to Canon, there is a tubular ink delivery system that generates faster print speeds and reduces clogging risk. Secondly, ink ejection conditions are monitored with sensors. If a sensor detects a clog the ink is directed to spare nozzles. Finally, if all else fails, one may trigger printhead cleanings. The printer also includes auto-cleaning mechanisms that are not a user option. Depending on the length of time not used and on the amount of usage, the printer will trigger automatic cleaning cycles. We can’t evaluate anti-clog performance, ink usage related thereto or print head life until enough evidence accumulates from the market.
16-bit Printing: The printer driver supports 16-bit printing. In Mac OSX, just check the 16-bit box, say if printing from Lightroom. The XPS driver is needed to commission 16-bit printing in Windows. It is also selectable in Print Studio Pro.
Colour Management: The printer driver and associated utilities provide for registering third party and custom paper profiles to be used in an application-based colour management workflow. For generating one’s own custom profiles, it remains recommended to print the targets using the Adobe Color Print Utility, with colour management switched off in the printer driver. To do this in Windows: go to the Devices and Printers utility. Right click on the icon for the printer and then click on Printing Preferences. Once the window opens, click on the Main tab, set the Color / Intensity to Manual and click Set. Click the Matching tab and set the Color Correction to None. For Mac, select Application Manages Color, and the color management of the driver will be disabled automatically.
Printing Software: For all those people who feel intimated working between their image editing applications and printer drivers, Canon has developed a really neat solution in their Print Studio Pro application (PSP, Figure 25). PSP is a printing plug-in to Adobe Photoshop, Photoshop Elements and Lightroom sporting a GUI that brings all the printer driver settings one normally needs into one convenient place from which the user can set all the printing parameters at once, helping one not to forget anything important.
But this application does a lot more than that. While this review is not the place for instructions on how to use this application, I provide here a summary list of the things one can do with it:
(1) It allows for soft-proofing if using application-managed colour and ICC profiles.
(2) It supports B&W printing, but in sRGB space only, and provides for toning.
(3) It allows one to make colour and tone adjustments (but I think this is not best practice in a colour managed workflow – this should all be done in the image editing application before going to print).
(4) It enables full 16-bit printing (but for Windows needs the XPS Driver).
(5) It allows you to choose partial or complete coating with the Chroma optimizer. Partial coating does not cover white areas, so in general I would not recommend this option.
(6) It provides for adjusting the size of margins.
(7) It allows us to print the margins in black, which often provides a nice backdrop effect for more “eye-popping” image appearance. (Borderless printing is not allowed for fine art matte papers, but is for luster and gloss papers.)
(8) One can create saved presets for all the print settings used in PSP.
(9) It supports adding text to photos.
(10) It provides various print layout options.
(11) It has a function to adjust sharpness according to paper characteristics; I have not been able to test this to see what it really does, but sounds interesting.
(12) PSP v2.0.0. includes a new feature called “Contrast Reproduction” that restores the apparent sharpness of high frequency data that may have been reduced in processing.
My one complaint about this application relates to the instructional material. It is on-line only and even there refers one to various places for different kinds of information on the same topic. It would really behoove Canon to provide one comprehensive PDF manual, keyworded and indexed, with “everything PSP” downloadable to one’s computer.
UPDATE as of May 22, 2016
Canon has informed us that the length limitation on printing is being increased to 25.5 inches from the current 22 inches. This would allow the complete fill of a 17 inch width sheet printed from photos with “full-frame” (24x36mm) aspect ratio. Canon will be releasing the firmware and driver updates for this improvement to your existing Pro-1000 printers at some time over the period of this June to September. A more specific timing will be notified in due course.
The Canon image PROGRAF PRO-1000 delivers excellent print quality. It is user-friendly and I didn’t see it lacking any essential features important to serious print makers. While the paper length limitation may be a factor in a purchase decision, I’m allowed to inform our readers that Canon is now in the process of determining whether this limitation can be relaxed in a forthcoming driver up-date. It’s a superb printer, and good to see that Canon is listening to customer feedback. (modified – corrected 3/18/16)