#Canon pro 2000 printer rip full#

I should also note that the negative was as sharp as an equivalent positive print off the printer is. The Canon printers have multiple custom ink limit profiles built in & the heaviest of these might be worth experimenting with to see if it can solve the highlight granularity issue. I may retry next week with a vacuum contact frame, but I'm not sure it'll really make much of a difference. It looks good compared to Epson negative scans or enlarger prints made on cheaper, less rigid/ less critically focusable kit, but when examined reasonably closely it has visible sharpness issues compared to enlarger prints made on solid, well focused machines or scans from high end scanning kit - and the output on FB paper from the Lambda for that matter. Where the problems lie are in the way the stochastic dots translate into 'grain' in highlights (aka where more ink loading is needed, albeit it is slight enough that many people working with something like 35mm TX might assume that it looks fine) and the fundamental sharpness of the print. There are flaws related to paper fibre transmission, but those are apparently surmountable. The tonality and density of the print resulting from the paper negative is not bad at all, and the density is fine.

I have previously printed the file on various papers on the Canon & optically printed the negative at about the same size in the darkroom on Multigrade Classic. It was from 6x7/ 120 and sized to about 5x7 to make it a reasonably tough test of the claims of tonality etc. For the record, the file I used was scanned on a Flextight scanner in good working order and printed at 600ppi. I used the chroma optimiser (which gave a decently smooth mild lustre finish) and made the final prints on Ilford multigrade classic FB. I used HahnemГјhle Photo Luster 260gsm because it was what I had on hand. It's an excellent printer and I've run kilometres of paper through it, and have a very good idea of how capable it is of delivering a very crisp print with superb colour handling. I put this to the test this afternoon on my Pro 2000. If you got the tonal range right on the paper negative, white on the display is white on the silver print, and black on the display is the maximum black you get on the silver print, and all the tones in between fall into their respective place relative to that tonal range on the silver print. If the highlights are too bright on the display, theyвЂ™ll be too bright on a positive inkjet print, and theyвЂ™ll be too bright if contact printed via paper negative. It really is by and large what you see on the display is what you get in the print. IвЂ™m not trying to reproduce what an actual film negative would look like because IвЂ™m already in an ICC colorspace that has a 0 to 100 percent display luminance range and the image has already been tone curved to fit within that tonal range by the colorspace/editing software.

#Canon pro 2000 printer rip full#

The key takeaway, is when I make a paper negative, IвЂ™m effectively making a black and white inkjet print, except the image IвЂ™m printing has been inverted and the full black to full white tonal range has been compressed to match what will print from full black to full white as a grade 3 on Ilford MGIV.