>>4354044
>$1300
>ink set costs about as much
>paper
Yeah printing is a meme

no tanks? no tank you. Fuck you, Canon.

File: DSC_6047.jpg (1.68 MB, 2012x3024)

1.68 MB JPG

>>4354044
>they didn't make it a tank-based system, but continued with the overpriced cartridge route.
are you retarded? you don't want pigment based ink in a tank system. that would just fuck everything up and clog it to death.
also compared to the smaller pro 200 the ink in the 1000/1100 isn't that horribly expensive. what makes the printer expensive is that it's pigment based and you have to run it at least once a week to not clog up the head. that's also the reason why the printer does that excessive self clean on startup (hint: don't turn off the printer if you can help it - just keep it on in standby)
if you absolutely don't need to have pigment based ink just get a dye ink based 200 pro.
I have both printers and I dont use the 1000 anymore. the 200 does a wonderful job for my use case (mostly black and white prints on heavy matte art paper)
pigment ink is a specialty that has many downsides
/blogpost

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON Z 6_2
Camera Software	Capture One 23 Macintosh
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	40 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	5000
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	40.00 mm
Image Width	2012
Image Height	3024
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	High
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4354076
What's the benefit of pigment inks?

>>4354089
dun fade nearly as fast

>>4354089
Like the other guy said, longevity, also more consistent performance with coated paper as the paper is just a substrate (backing layer) for the ink pigments which sit on top of it. Dye inks interface with the paper itself to a greater extent and will have less consistent performance with different papers.

But like the other other man said, they clog like fuck. I’m all for outsourcing printing, because a good printer needs to be run daily to stay consistent. That goes way more for pigment than for dye.

>>4354076
Whats the history stack on that image? The post processing looks nice

>>4354111
I did out source my prints, but over the past five years the cost has doubled. Managed to get a Pro-100 for a good price, yep I go through a set of ink cartridges over about a year, but it still works out cheaper for me. If I lived nearer to a printer (no Postage) I'd still be outsource the printing.
Looking at the new 1100, nicer inks, longer prints (3m over 1.2m) and a grey printer not black, nope I'm not rushing to upgrade.

File: Screenshot 2024-09-01 at (...).jpg (834 KB, 1730x2614)

834 KB JPG

>>4354089
according to chartfags they will last DECADES OF YEARS or so and B&W is said to look better (though that's pretty subjective because I love dye ink on heavy matte paper b&w prints more than pigment prints)

the thing is dye ink will last a few years too, when you hang it into the sun. when you put it somewhere the sun doesnt shine on it directly you can also get it for decades to last but in the end that's a non-issue because you can always either re-print a faded print or most likely you will have replaced it anyway because it got boring after 2 years

the only thing I like about my 1000 vs 200 is that it can print A2 and that the ink is less expensive in the long run (because it has more ink in a cartridge). everything else the 200 is a way better amateur printer overall

>>4354159
loaded into capture one, +0.59ev, auto-levels

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1730
Image Height	2614
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4354796
I watched a few videos about the 1100 and my feeling is that it's all just driver magic and not the "new improved inks". IIRC they only added some wax shit to the inks so they won't scratch as easily. the change in color rendition could be simply the canon jew milking cutomers by changing the driver software and essentially selling a 1000 for double the price (i mean even the USB port is the old school 2004 USB printer port instead of USB-C)

File: printing.jpg (19 KB, 532x105)

19 KB JPG

Print?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Christopher Barzyz
Image-Specific Properties:

>>4355213
umm... based?

>>4354799
Just got a 200 a few weeks ago and it’s been great so far. I think the only thing I miss from stepping up to the 1000 is the wider print, but that didn’t seem worth the double+ price here. 13” wide is still pretty nice. Only problem is now I’m getting to the point where I just have to print a couple “busy work” 4x6 every couple days to keep the thing working, I find I’m being much more selective about what to print big than I thought I would be. I didn’t research the cost of large paper and shit caught me by surprise lol. I just figured paper would be cheap cause it’s paper.

>>4354076
I think you're the retarded one. Epson has no problem running pigments in their better tank printers. The ET8550 is particularly popular for pigments (and dye sub among other things). Running pigment ink in one of those is about the same cost as dye per print.

>>4354089
Good dye inks like the claria stuff is pretty close in the right application, but generally pigment is more water resistant, more resistant to ozone/uv, more resistant to fading.