Canon IP5000 cannot print proper blacks on kodak two sided..

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Greetings Steve,

I am glad to know that your issue has been resolved by Canon (email you sent
me). The settings in the programs you are using are often the first in the
process of review by support teams. Throwing the icm switch has apparently
changed your results and improved them dramatically. Consider the
additional review I offered as that might help with some control in the
future.

Talk to you soon, Steve,

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company




> Here is an update to my latest situation. I upgraded the Canon IP3000
> to the IP5000, hoping that the extra tank of special black ink would
> finally get me proper blacks. This is a 5 ink system. Believe it or
> not, it didn't. I'm just stunned by this. I've now spent $300 on a
> printer and it still won't print blacks beyond 'dark purple'.
>
> I'm using brand new kodak two sided soft gloss paper. I've tried all
> the printer settings and the darkest 'black' I can get is using glossy
> photo paper setting, but it is still not good enough. I'm making
> direct visual comparisons with solid black prints I made on the Canon
> S830D and they are definitley not even close to the same intensity.
> What is odd is that on the IP3000, I could get a proper dark black
> (but wet) using the plain paper setting, but on the ip5000, it remains
> dark purple. (but dry)
>

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

According to tests and for the record I was told by a Canon factory rep
not to use Kodak paper. Canon Photo Paper Pro will produce the blacks
you want. He said that a close second is Epson paper.

As for the IP5000, this is a good printer that produces superior
business test and graphics than the IP4000 but marginally inferior photo
prints. Both are much better than the IP3000.

I would be concerned that the 1 picoliter droplet size may lead to print
clogging if used infrequently but I have not read any reports on this.
It is strange that Canon choose not to use the smaller droplet size on
the IP8500, the flagship Pixma model with the I9900 print engine.

Steve wrote:

>Here is an update to my latest situation. I upgraded the Canon IP3000
>to the IP5000, hoping that the extra tank of special black ink would
>finally get me proper blacks. This is a 5 ink system. Believe it or
>not, it didn't. I'm just stunned by this. I've now spent $300 on a
>printer and it still won't print blacks beyond 'dark purple'.
>
>I'm using brand new kodak two sided soft gloss paper. I've tried all
>the printer settings and the darkest 'black' I can get is using glossy
>photo paper setting, but it is still not good enough. I'm making
>direct visual comparisons with solid black prints I made on the Canon
>S830D and they are definitley not even close to the same intensity.
>What is odd is that on the IP3000, I could get a proper dark black
>(but wet) using the plain paper setting, but on the ip5000, it remains
>dark purple. (but dry)
>
>I don't understand what the problem is. I'm using the exact same paper
>as I did on the Canon S830D printer, which was a six tank system, but
>had only a 'one' black 'non dye based' ink cartridge, as oppposed to
>the IP5000 which uses a cheap black ink AND a photo based black ink.
>How can that old S830D printer, having only one black, low grade ink,
>make blacks that are actually 'black', and the brand new IP5000 Canon
>with 2 black ink tanks, can only achieve dark purple? It doens't make
>any sense at all. Canon told me on the phone that my 'black' problem
>was because the IP3000 was not a 'photo grade' printer, and that I
>would have to upgrade to get blacks that matched the S830D. Well, I've
>got news for you. I've upgraded to the IP5000 and it still can't print
>black. what do I have to do to get proper blacks? Spend $800 on a
>printer?? Give me a break. I spent $150 CAD last year on the S830D and
>it printed solid blacks like a charm until the print head got clogged.
>
>I'm going to be calling Canon about this, though there is nothing they
>can tell me that I've not already tried. What I have to assume here is
>that the IP line is just not as good as the S830D line when it comes
>to printing proper blacks on two sided paper soft gloss paper, even
>though it uses two black cartridges and costs more! I've spent $100
>more ($250 CAD) on the IP5000 than the S830D cost me last year. This
>is really annoying, considering I just bought 500 sheets of Kodak two
>sided paper. I would gladly trade my IP5000 for the S830D model if I
>could still buy it.
>
>

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:
> According to tests and for the record I was told by a Canon factory
> rep not to use Kodak paper. Canon Photo Paper Pro will produce the
> blacks you want. He said that a close second is Epson paper.
>
> As for the IP5000, this is a good printer that produces superior
> business test and graphics than the IP4000 but marginally inferior
> photo prints. Both are much better than the IP3000.
>
> I would be concerned that the 1 picoliter droplet size may lead to
> print clogging if used infrequently but I have not read any reports
> on this. It is strange that Canon choose not to use the smaller
> droplet size on the IP8500, the flagship Pixma model with the I9900
> print engine.


I don't know where, but i've read that on some reviews ip4000 turned out to
be better than ip5000 when printing photos...god knows why...

>
> Steve wrote:
>
>> Here is an update to my latest situation. I upgraded the Canon IP3000
>> to the IP5000, hoping that the extra tank of special black ink would
>> finally get me proper blacks. This is a 5 ink system. Believe it or
>> not, it didn't. I'm just stunned by this. I've now spent $300 on a
>> printer and it still won't print blacks beyond 'dark purple'.
>>
>> I'm using brand new kodak two sided soft gloss paper. I've tried all
>> the printer settings and the darkest 'black' I can get is using
>> glossy photo paper setting, but it is still not good enough. I'm
>> making direct visual comparisons with solid black prints I made on
>> the Canon S830D and they are definitley not even close to the same
>> intensity. What is odd is that on the IP3000, I could get a proper
>> dark black (but wet) using the plain paper setting, but on the
>> ip5000, it remains dark purple. (but dry)
>>
>> I don't understand what the problem is. I'm using the exact same
>> paper as I did on the Canon S830D printer, which was a six tank
>> system, but had only a 'one' black 'non dye based' ink cartridge,
>> as oppposed to the IP5000 which uses a cheap black ink AND a photo
>> based black ink. How can that old S830D printer, having only one
>> black, low grade ink, make blacks that are actually 'black', and the
>> brand new IP5000 Canon with 2 black ink tanks, can only achieve dark
>> purple? It doens't make any sense at all. Canon told me on the phone
>> that my 'black' problem was because the IP3000 was not a 'photo
>> grade' printer, and that I would have to upgrade to get blacks that
>> matched the S830D. Well, I've got news for you. I've upgraded to the
>> IP5000 and it still can't print black. what do I have to do to get
>> proper blacks? Spend $800 on a printer?? Give me a break. I spent
>> $150 CAD last year on the S830D and it printed solid blacks like a
>> charm until the print head got clogged. I'm going to be calling Canon
>> about this, though there is nothing
>> they can tell me that I've not already tried. What I have to assume
>> here is that the IP line is just not as good as the S830D line when
>> it comes to printing proper blacks on two sided paper soft gloss
>> paper, even though it uses two black cartridges and costs more! I've
>> spent $100 more ($250 CAD) on the IP5000 than the S830D cost me last
>> year. This is really annoying, considering I just bought 500 sheets
>> of Kodak two sided paper. I would gladly trade my IP5000 for the
>> S830D model if I could still buy it.

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

It was published in PCWORLD.

SleeperMan wrote:

>measekite wrote:
>
>
>>According to tests and for the record I was told by a Canon factory
>>rep not to use Kodak paper. Canon Photo Paper Pro will produce the
>>blacks you want. He said that a close second is Epson paper.
>>
>>As for the IP5000, this is a good printer that produces superior
>>business test and graphics than the IP4000 but marginally inferior
>>photo prints. Both are much better than the IP3000.
>>
>>I would be concerned that the 1 picoliter droplet size may lead to
>>print clogging if used infrequently but I have not read any reports
>>on this. It is strange that Canon choose not to use the smaller
>>droplet size on the IP8500, the flagship Pixma model with the I9900
>>print engine.
>>
>>
>
>
>I don't know where, but i've read that on some reviews ip4000 turned out to
>be better than ip5000 when printing photos...god knows why...
>
>
>
>>Steve wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Here is an update to my latest situation. I upgraded the Canon IP3000
>>>to the IP5000, hoping that the extra tank of special black ink would
>>>finally get me proper blacks. This is a 5 ink system. Believe it or
>>>not, it didn't. I'm just stunned by this. I've now spent $300 on a
>>>printer and it still won't print blacks beyond 'dark purple'.
>>>
>>>I'm using brand new kodak two sided soft gloss paper. I've tried all
>>>the printer settings and the darkest 'black' I can get is using
>>>glossy photo paper setting, but it is still not good enough. I'm
>>>making direct visual comparisons with solid black prints I made on
>>>the Canon S830D and they are definitley not even close to the same
>>>intensity. What is odd is that on the IP3000, I could get a proper
>>>dark black (but wet) using the plain paper setting, but on the
>>>ip5000, it remains dark purple. (but dry)
>>>
>>>I don't understand what the problem is. I'm using the exact same
>>>paper as I did on the Canon S830D printer, which was a six tank
>>>system, but had only a 'one' black 'non dye based' ink cartridge,
>>>as oppposed to the IP5000 which uses a cheap black ink AND a photo
>>>based black ink. How can that old S830D printer, having only one
>>>black, low grade ink, make blacks that are actually 'black', and the
>>>brand new IP5000 Canon with 2 black ink tanks, can only achieve dark
>>>purple? It doens't make any sense at all. Canon told me on the phone
>>>that my 'black' problem was because the IP3000 was not a 'photo
>>>grade' printer, and that I would have to upgrade to get blacks that
>>>matched the S830D. Well, I've got news for you. I've upgraded to the
>>>IP5000 and it still can't print black. what do I have to do to get
>>>proper blacks? Spend $800 on a printer?? Give me a break. I spent
>>>$150 CAD last year on the S830D and it printed solid blacks like a
>>>charm until the print head got clogged. I'm going to be calling Canon
>>>about this, though there is nothing
>>>they can tell me that I've not already tried. What I have to assume
>>>here is that the IP line is just not as good as the S830D line when
>>>it comes to printing proper blacks on two sided paper soft gloss
>>>paper, even though it uses two black cartridges and costs more! I've
>>>spent $100 more ($250 CAD) on the IP5000 than the S830D cost me last
>>>year. This is really annoying, considering I just bought 500 sheets
>>>of Kodak two sided paper. I would gladly trade my IP5000 for the
>>>S830D model if I could still buy it.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
>

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article measekite says...
> As for the IP5000, this is a good printer that produces superior
> business test and graphics than the IP4000 but marginally inferior photo
> prints. Both are much better than the IP3000.
>
Why would Text differ on these 3 printers? Same ink, same text section
of printhead. The iP5000 should be equivalent to an iP4000 until the 1pl
droplets kick in for photoprints. Maybe the review needs reviewing.

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I think that the print head is all 1 picoliter. The IP5000 prints
slower than the IP4000. I also think the firmware is different.

colinco wrote:

>In article measekite says...
>
>
>>As for the IP5000, this is a good printer that produces superior
>>business test and graphics than the IP4000 but marginally inferior photo
>>prints. Both are much better than the IP3000.
>>
>>
>>
>Why would Text differ on these 3 printers? Same ink, same text section
>of printhead. The iP5000 should be equivalent to an iP4000 until the 1pl
>droplets kick in for photoprints. Maybe the review needs reviewing.
>
>

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Steve wrote:
> Here is an update to my latest situation. I upgraded the Canon IP3000
> to the IP5000, hoping that the extra tank of special black ink would
> finally get me proper blacks. This is a 5 ink system. Believe it or
> not, it didn't. I'm just stunned by this. I've now spent $300 on a
> printer and it still won't print blacks beyond 'dark purple'.
>

I have an i860 and a iP5000. Where before I wasn't getting solid blacks
in certain situations with the i860, I'm getting solid blacks with the
iP5000. As far as my eye can tell, a black shirt appears "black" in a
photo I recently printed and not anything resembling purple. I'm
extremely pleased with this printer. I don't use Kodak paper. I've
used Canon, Dollar Store, and Epson paper. All print black.

-Taliesyn