Pixma Pro-100 mono ink bleed

[MattBurt]

I haven't done much photo printing myself in recent years but recently picked up a new printer at a price too low to resist. I've been meaning to get into it a little anyway so this deal pushed me over the edge.
I had some old 8.5x11 photo paper (glossy HP) and also got a pack of Canon A3+ LU-101 paper bundled. I've printed a few color images and they look good. Both are pretty light colored if that matters.
Last night I decided to print a mono image on the Canon paper and anywhere there is a dark black part, the ink appears to bleed over into the lighter adjoining parts looking almost like watercolor.
I'm just using default settings in LR6 and the printer so I'm hoping I can resolve this via a setting or something. Or maybe the paper isn't suited to this? Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Here is my image:
IMGP3110-Edit by Matt Burt, on Flickr

I'm attaching a phone pic of a part of it showing the bleed. LMK what you think. Thanks!

[GrahamBy]

Those sort of flurries in the water can be quite complex... it's possible you are seeing the reality of the diffusion patterns in the water.

Maybe if you showed us what is happening in the grasses etc where there seems also to be strong black/white boundaries? Those I can see at the edge of the phone pick look ok...

[MattBurt]

I'll get more/better pics when I'm home later. The effect is visible anywhere there is dark black bordering on a lighter shade.
So it is in the grass, the background trees, and the water.

[MattBurt]

Here is the grass. I also added more pics to the original post. It just doesn't look right.

[GrahamBy]

How much sharpening are you applying to the image?

[MattBurt]

How much sharpening are you applying to the image?

In the initial develop, a fair amount. I used LR6 (Punch preset) and then Silver Efex Pro and I like the effect of the Structure filter in SEP.
Do you suspect too much or not enough? For the way the image looks on screen, I'd say it's just enough.

My print module settings are at the defaults (I think). I have not changed them on purpose anyway.

[Simon J.A. Simpson]

This looks to me like you have printed on an uncoated paper (i.e. a coat to take the ink) and the ink has run.

With matt paper it can be quite hard to tell which side is which (been there, done that, got the T-shirt).

Could this be the reason ?

Great picture BTW.

[MattBurt]

This looks to me like you have printed on an uncoated paper (i.e. a coat to take the ink) and the ink has run.

With matt paper it can be quite hard to tell which side is which (been there, done that, got the T-shirt).

Could this be the reason ?

Great picture BTW.

Thanks!

It's the Canon LU-101 Luster paper and I printed on the glossier side. Could that be my whole problem? I assumed that was the correct side as it seemed more like photo paper than the other side.
I'd love to hear it's as simple as that!

[MattBurt]

I figured it out! I'm a little embarrassed but I'll come clean for the sake of anyone else who might make the same mistake.

That first sheet of paper wasn't paper at all but a thin sheet of cardboard with one side all white and glossy!

So once I printed on the actual paper the print looks fantastic! I LOL'd at myself. 

[GrahamBy]

Lol !

I also wondered about printing on the wrong paper... I've made the mistake of printing on the back but it looks far worse, and the paper type should have been fine. Didn't allow for the cover sheet

Glad to hear it worked out