Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: HowardG on August 30, 2016, 09:46:54 pm
-
I just switched from Epson to a Canon IPG 2000 and was a bit confused on the main page of the driver in terms of how they phrase their settings in the Color Mode>Color Settings>Matching choices. I want to pick the correct choice for specifying a profile and rendering intent in the Photoshop print dialogueI am presuming the correct choice is NONE, but it is a bit confusing. The manual reads (in terms of the options):
Driver Matching-Print with the optimal color using the driver's original color profile. Normally, you should choose this mode.
ICC Profile Matching-Carry out color matching using the ICC profile. Specify the input profile, printer profile and matching method in detail, and select when printing. You can use the digital camera or scanner ICC profile, or the ICC profile created using the profile creation tool.
ICM-Perform color matching on the host computer using the Windows ICM function. Select when printing from an ICM function-compatible application.
None-Print without performing color matching on the printer driver. Select this when performing color matching using applications such as Adobe Photoshop, or printing using a profile creation tool or color chart.
Thanks.
Howard
-
Yes, you want "None".
I believe the second one is also usable for the way you wish to print. Unfortunately, the material in the Pro-2000 Manual is very poor on this subject.
-
Thanks Mark. Yes, the Canon documentation is not as well written as it could be. The documentation for my 7900 was clearer and the color settings were not as buried in sub-menues. Interestingly, I had also emailed Canon tech support (though I trust people here more) and they just emailed me back basically saying that if "Photoshop Manages Colors" is chosen in the Photoshop driver that the settings in the Canon driver are not read and it doesn't matter what it is set to unless you choose "Printer Manages Colors" in the PS driver. I made a test image print with both 'none' and 'driver matching' chosen in the Canon driver and they both looked exactly the same. Probably safest to just set it to none though.
It does make me wonder though if that is a potential solution to the issue of Photoshop removing the "No Color Management" option from the dialogue in terms of printing profile targets. Would choosing "Printer Manages Colors" in PS and "None" in the Canon driver be the same as printing the target with the Adobe CMM?
Howard
-
Not a straightforward situation. What operating system are you using? What version of PS are you using?
-
I am using Windows 10 64 bit and PS CC 2016. ....
-
Sorry, not familiar with how this works on Windows.
-
Probably safest to stick with the Adobe method...thanks
-
You should give a try to Canon Print Studio Pro Photoshop/Lightroom/Elements/DPP plug-in - it takes control of all driver settings and manages profiles automagically.
When you're adding a new media with MCT you can set default profile for this paper setting, so the PSP will use the indicated profile in Auto mode and you won't need to set proper custom profile when changing paper type. There's also a unique Contrast Reproduction feature (only available in PSP) that can reproduce super fine details of the image better.
Congrats for buying Canon and have a good time - the more I'm printing with these new printers, the more impressed I am ;)
-
So far I am very impressed with the prints. I haven't used the Print Studio Pro plug-in because of its inability to print using black point compensation though.... maybe I should give it a try anyway
Howard
www.howardgrill.com
-
I haven't used the Print Studio Pro plug-in because of its inability to print using black point compensation though....
I can't believe Canon haven't fixed/changed that to this date! I gave up their print plugin on the IPF x400 printers because of that (just use it to print targets), but I honestly thought they would have it corrected for the new printer/software package.
That is sad.
-
I can't believe Canon haven't fixed/changed that to this date! I gave up their print plugin on the IPF x400 printers because of that (just use it to print targets), but I honestly thought they would have it corrected for the new printer/software package.
That is sad.
Geraldo, have you tried a comparison print with versus without PSP? I seem to recall when I was testing the Pro-1000 I made one print through PSP and another through my usual Adobe-centric workflow and couldn't tell the difference. It could be they are implementing something to the effect of BPC under the hood, but I could find out more next week.
-
Mark, in this recent review of the IPG 1000 by Keith Cooper ( http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/printer/review-canon_pro-1000.html ) he notes the continued lack of BPC in the plug-in and shows the difference in the same print made with the plug in and without it using BPC. So I suspect they have not implemented it. It is about a third of the way into the review
Howard
-
OK thanks. Maybe the impact of it is sensitive to the kind of photo being printed. Anyhow, I shall be looking further into it after the holiday weekend.
-
So far I am very impressed with the prints. I haven't used the Print Studio Pro plug-in because of its inability to print using black point compensation though.... maybe I should give it a try anyway
Howard
www.howardgrill.com
Give it a try, and use perceptual instead of relcol. It's much, much better for photo printing anyway, I always wonder why people use relcol for such purpose...
-
I always wonder why people use relcol for such purpose...
Because it works very well for a great many images. There is no religion in this business. One verifies photo by photo whether it looks better with the one versus the other.
-
OK thanks. Maybe the impact of it is sensitive to the kind of photo being printed. Anyhow, I shall be looking further into it after the holiday weekend.
Thanks very much Mark. I would really be appreciative to hear what you find out!
Howard
www.howardgrill.com
-
Give it a try, and use perceptual instead of relcol. It's much, much better for photo printing anyway, I always wonder why people use relcol for such purpose...
I'm no expert, but some images seem to look better with one rendering intent or the other. I suspect it depends on the image, the paper, and the profile. I used to make two different versions of the print, one using the perceptual rendering intent and the other relative. Now I just tend to pick which one looks best in soft proofing and decide that way.
Howard
www.howardgrill.com
-
I'm no expert, but some images seem to look better with one rendering intent or the other. I suspect it depends on the image, the paper, and the profile. I used to make two different versions of the print, one using the perceptual rendering intent and the other relative. Now I just tend to pick which one looks best in soft proofing and decide that way.
Howard
www.howardgrill.com
That's right and this is best practice.
-
Thanks very much Mark. I would really be appreciative to hear what you find out!
Howard
www.howardgrill.com
I shall communicate anything useful, as and when.
-
Because it works very well for a great many images. There is no religion in this business. One verifies photo by photo whether it looks better with the one versus the other.
I'm not religious at all :) So as for me it's not about religion - it's about art ;)
From my experience good perceptual rendering always works at least as good as relcol with BPC, and in many cases it just works better. When creating custom profiles you can also "season" perceptual rendering to your taste. And softproofing doesn't always tell the whole story...
-
Don't take me too literally about the word "religious" - it was shorthand for describing an approach that isn't based on empirical evidence, such as an a priori that "one size fits all". Most professional print makers I have read or discussed the matter with, and based on my own experience as well, will advise that's it's best practice to examine the choice of RI one photo at a time. This makes sense both empirically and theoretically. Empirical is each person's taste, so there's no point spending much time discussing this except to say that print appearance can vary depending on the photo and the chosen RI, and different people will prefer different renditions. So be it. But the theoretical considerations are worth bearing in mind when deciding whether to be "religious" about it. After reading the descriptions (Real World Color Management, 2nd edition pages 88 and 89 by Fraser, Murphy and Bunting) of how the RI treats the photos differently, especially relevant to out of gamut colours, it should become immediately obvious why the recommended best practice remains best practice.
As for how well softproofing works, depending on the quality of the profiles, the display, the soft proof settings and the experience of the user, it can be a very reliable indicator of what to expect from the printer - not perfect, but god enough to reply on - that's the whole point of it.
-
Geraldo, have you tried a comparison print with versus without PSP? I seem to recall when I was testing the Pro-1000 I made one print through PSP and another through my usual Adobe-centric workflow and couldn't tell the difference. It could be they are implementing something to the effect of BPC under the hood, but I could find out more next week.
Hello Mark and Marcin,
It is worth to note that I was talking about the "old" print plugin for the IPF x400 printers as I am still waiting for the Pro 1000, so I have no actual experience with Canon's new software.
On my IPF 8400 the difference is quite obvious on dark areas.
About Perceptual or RelCol+BPC my take is this:
RelCol+BPC is more faithful to the original file about 80% of the time, although some may find the Perceptual rendering more aesthetically pleasing even when it is not as faithful. But RelCol+BPC is never "unacceptable". Perceptual, on the other hand, sometimes renders unacceptable images with lots of banding. But it is clearly image dependent.
Regards.