Robert,
When comparing screen and print: was that with or without softproofing?
And how bright or dim was the light shining on the print? Profiling/calibrating your monitor is setting it up against a certain target that includes assumptions about the brightness and spectral compsoition of the light used to view the actual print in.
When I compare a print in the blue-ish northern light that falls through one of the windows of my house it doesn't match with the screen (as the screen is not calbrated for that kind of light, viewing condition). When I put the print in my viewing booth it does match much better to the screen, as the light in the viewing booth matches (better) with the target the screen is calibrated against.
If you want to match the screen display to how a print looks in certain (day)light you have to profile/calibrate you screen to that target. There is nothing wrong about calibrating a monitor against an out of the box standard like gamma 2.2, 6500 Kelvin but if your prints are lit by a lamp with a different color temp and brightness the print will look different then on screen.
Now to answer the obvious question you have after reading the previous: my prints hang on the wall, are lit by mixed light from morning sun, noon daylight, evening shade, tungsten and any of the combinations in various brigthnesses. So prints look different during the day, so I opted to go for a somewhat warmer target that is a trade off between noon daylight and tungsten for my screen and viewing booth. I know my viewing booth is a bit brighter and cooler but with some experience a learned to compensate for that in my head and am in general happy with how the screen looks on screen and in the end when framed and hung to the wall.
A bigger printer is very nice to own. Go for it, but thinking about it, if you could spare some more $$$$ have a look at the canon ipf5100 or an epson 4880 17"models. These are pro grade printers, sturdy build quality, most likely a bigger color gamut then the consumer models, better screening and, depending on your printing volume, cheaper to run as ink is less expensive per ml. I have no experience with canvas but maybe these printers can handle that also much better.
No offense taken.
There are three reasons to change. 1) I am disappointed in the results. Prints just do not come close enough to the monitor. In particular dark greens which tend to come out more brownish and the prints are generally too dark. 2) I want to print on larger formats and canvas 3) Profiles for different papers are generally more widely available for higher end printers.
And yes, I think I am following a proper workflow.
I have:
1. Profiled my monitor
2. Compared the image on the profiled monitor to several other non-profiled monitors. All are reasonably close.
3. Downloaded the generic printer profile for my paper/printer combination from the Illford site and printed with Adobe Managing Color and the right profile.
I have also made sure that printer color managment is turned off.
4. Purchased a custom printer profile and repeated the print.
5. Tried printing with Printer manages Colors.
The results from 3 were better (though not acceptable) than 4! In fact the custom printer profile was terrible.
Thanks
