Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: KatManDEW on March 24, 2014, 07:57:53 pm
-
I know, the old "My prints are too dark" story...
I just got a Pro 100 last week to use when I don't want to unload a roll on my iPF6000 to print smaller single sheets. My pro 100 prints are significantly too dark
I have a NEC PA301WSV (with calibration), and my iPF6300 prints match my NEC screen extremely well. But the Pro 100 prints are way too dark and seem to have some color shift. I'm using the XPS driver with color management turned off and the appropriate paper profiles with the software I'm printing from (just like I do with my iPF6300). I normally print with QImage, but I've tired printing from Photoshop and that doesn't help. I proof prints with Ottlites.
I've tried Canon gloss, Semi gloss and Luster, and Red River Gloss and Metallic, with the appropriate paper profiles. Weird thing is that although the prints are too dark overall, some parts are actually too light, as in the crops of the Rolex logo in the attached pic. (Pro 100 on left). I get the best results with the Canon Luster paper, but even it is a little too dark.
I have an old Canon i9900 and it wasn't too much of a problem, but I did have some trouble with dark prints with it too. Is this a dye based versus pigment print situation? Do I need to post process dye based prints much brighter than pigment prints.
The light streaks on the prints in the attached pic are glare from the lighting.
Anyone have any suggestions or ideas what I'm doing wrong?
-
Are you using soft proofing in your workflow?
-
Are you using soft proofing in your workflow?
Yes and no. Soft proofing makes the images look lighter on-screen. So if I adjust the images with soft proofing turned on, I end up with even darker looking prints.
-
Yes and no. Soft proofing makes the images look lighter on-screen. So if I adjust the images with soft proofing turned on, I end up with even darker looking prints.
In the Canon XPS printer driver dialogue box, under the Main tab what are your color/intensity settings? This is where I would look first. Maybe you have Manual checked and the settings under the Set button configured to give a dark print. Other than this, I would have to defer to someone more apt at solving such problems. Good luck
-
Print a reference image, one with known, good RGB values. There's one called Printer Test File on my site, other's around the web to use too. Is that too dark? Everywhere you view the print? If so, it's something happening in the print path (wrong profile, bad profile, wrong settings etc).
-
Print a reference image, one with known, good RGB values. There's one called Printer Test File on my site, other's around the web to use too. Is that too dark? Everywhere you view the print? If so, it's something happening in the print path (wrong profile, bad profile, wrong settings etc).
I can't find that on your site. Where do I look for it? (very interesting site BTW).
-
In the Canon XPS printer driver dialogue box, under the Main tab what are your color/intensity settings? This is where I would look first. Maybe you have Manual checked and the settings under the Set button configured to give a dark print. Other than this, I would have to defer to someone more apt at solving such problems. Good luck
I have Manual set, with no adjustments. Thanks for the idea.
-
I can't find that on your site. Where do I look for it? (very interesting site BTW).
http://www.digitaldog.net/tips/
-
http://www.digitaldog.net/tips/
I've been using this for years for printer quality control, and also the continuous spectrum for profile evaluation - eg. banding from sudden transitions or reversals. I think I've fallen in love with the lovely lady and her skin tones, though!
My other favorite is Outback Photo's, which has four racially diverse children for skin tone evaluation as well as black and white patches of diminishing intensity for shadow/highlight monitor and printing thresholds:
http://www.outbackphoto.com/printinginsights/pi049/essay.html
Pete
-
Just a thought but have you tried the standard Canon Pro 100 printer driver to check that this is not driver related and double checked that colour management has been disabled in the print driver - Main Tab/ Colour Intesity / Manual /Set / Matching Tab - set to None? This is buried so deep sometimes I forget to double check
Perhaps unlikely to be an issue but the XPS drivers offer 16 bit support in Windows only for those applications that support the 16 bit pipeline LR and PS do not so I believe you would need to go through the Canon Print Studio Pro plug-in software to utilise 16 bit correctly. Having said that I have used both drivers with entry level Canon and although not compared directly seem to work ok
-
expensive NEC monitor + expensive NEC profiler + manufacturer provided profile for paper/ink combination = prints still not matching monitor (too dark, but mostly in the shadow areas). one might almost think "too dark" is intentionally designed to sell more high end equipment.
-
The best tools are worth nothing if you dont use them correctly.
expensive NEC monitor + expensive NEC profiler + manufacturer provided profile for paper/ink combination = prints still not matching monitor (too dark, but mostly in the shadow areas). one might almost think "too dark" is intentionally designed to sell more high end equipment.
-
Just a thought but have you tried the standard Canon Pro 100 printer driver to check that this is not driver related and double checked that colour management has been disabled in the print driver - Main Tab/ Colour Intesity / Manual /Set / Matching Tab - set to None? This is buried so deep sometimes I forget to double check
Perhaps unlikely to be an issue but the XPS drivers offer 16 bit support in Windows only for those applications that support the 16 bit pipeline LR and PS do not so I believe you would need to go through the Canon Print Studio Pro plug-in software to utilise 16 bit correctly. Having said that I have used both drivers with entry level Canon and although not compared directly seem to work ok
I didn't see that part on the Matching until a few days after I got the printer, and I've been checking it religously since then. Thanks for the thought.
I had never heard that about LR and PS not supporting the 16 bit pipeline. If that's the case, I assume that QImage also does not. Since I'm printing TIFF's that could very well be a problem. I didn't install Canon Print Studio Pro, so it sounds like I better do that and give it a try. Thanks!
-
16 bit TIFFs dont relate to a 16 bit printing pipeline
-
expensive NEC monitor + expensive NEC profiler + manufacturer provided profile for paper/ink combination = prints still not matching monitor (too dark, but mostly in the shadow areas). one might almost think "too dark" is intentionally designed to sell more high end equipment.
My iPF6300 prints match the calibrated NEC monitor so well and reliably that I don't often even look back at the screen to compare it to the print. I just lay the prints under the Ottlites and think "Beautiful. Just the way I intended it to look when processing the image"...
-
I've been using this for years for printer quality control, and also the continuous spectrum for profile evaluation - eg. banding from sudden transitions or reversals. I think I've fallen in love with the lovely lady and her skin tones, though!
My other favorite is Outback Photo's, which has four racially diverse children for skin tone evaluation as well as black and white patches of diminishing intensity for shadow/highlight monitor and printing thresholds:
http://www.outbackphoto.com/printinginsights/pi049/essay.html
Pete
That's the one I have been using.
-
I didn't see that part on the Matching until a few days after I got the printer, and I've been checking it religously since then. Thanks for the thought.
I had never heard that about LR and PS not supporting the 16 bit pipeline. If that's the case, I assume that QImage also does not. Since I'm printing TIFF's that could very well be a problem. I didn't install Canon Print Studio Pro, so it sounds like I better do that and give it a try. Thanks!
Have you tried the the test image suggested by Andrew or any others and if so how does it compare when printing to screen view in both normal and soft proof windows?
I would suggest after trying the test image and if the situation remains the same then try again but this time select the standard print driver for the Pro 100 (I believe that you should have both the XPS and standard). I do not think that Qimage does use the 16 bit print pipeline at least that I believe used to be the case.
Tiffs or other 16 bit images are not a problem as 16 bit will be correctly converted when sent down the 8 bit pipeline for output from either LR or PS. I believe the problem lies elsewhere and your soft proofing results sound very strange
Are you 100% sure that you are selecting the correct paper profiles specifically for the PRO 100 and not some other e.g. your iP6400?
I know from experience that Canon profile naming outside of their drivers or applications can lead to confusion and I am not sure how they differentiate the dye ink profiles from the pigment Lucia ink profiles.
EDIT:Also meant to say that looking at your shots of prints my impression is that this could be an incorrect profile has been chosen or is it possible that you are inadvertently double profiling looking at the magenta cast in the fallen tree and rocks
-
Have you tried the the test image suggested by Andrew or any others and if so how does it compare when printing to screen view in both normal and soft proof windows?
I would suggest after trying the test image and if the situation remains the same then try again but this time select the standard print driver for the Pro 100 (I believe that you should have both the XPS and standard). I do not think that Qimage does use the 16 bit print pipeline at least that I believe used to be the case.
Tiffs or other 16 bit images are not a problem as 16 bit will be correctly converted when sent down the 8 bit pipeline for output from either LR or PS. I believe the problem lies elsewhere and your soft proofing results sound very strange
Are you 100% sure that you are selecting the correct paper profiles specifically for the PRO 100 and not some other e.g. your iP6400?
I know from experience that Canon profile naming outside of their drivers or applications can lead to confusion and I am not sure how they differentiate the dye ink profiles from the pigment Lucia ink profiles.
EDIT:Also meant to say that looking at your shots of prints my impression is that this could be an incorrect profile has been chosen or is it possible that you are inadvertently double profiling looking at the magenta cast in the fallen tree and rocks
Yes, that's the test image I've been using. With soft proofing turned off, the color looks extremely close to what the Pro 100 prints, except the lightest and darkest couple white and black squares are 100% white and black on the prints (like the Pro 100 prints on anything except luster paper). When I turn on soft proofing, the white and black squares all become discernible, and the colors all become very muted (unlike the prints).
I won't say that it's totally impossible that I inadvertently used the wrong profile or double profiled, because I was trying several things, and most of the time the output software and driver setting weren't "sticking" between prints (They would change when trying another print without changing anything in the software/driver myself before doing another print).
I'm continuing experimentation and I haven't given up hope for the printer, but it's been a nightmare compared to the iPF6300.
-
With soft proofing turned off, the color looks extremely close to what the Pro 100 prints, except the lightest and darkest couple white and black squares are 100% white and black on the prints (like the Pro 100 prints on anything except luster paper). When I turn on soft proofing, the white and black squares all become discernible, and the colors all become very muted (unlike the prints).
Which is exactly the opposite of what you should be seeing. Sounds like the display calibration is suspect IF the non soft proofed image looks good with the profile used to make the print.
-
Which is exactly the opposite of what you should be seeing. Sounds like the display calibration is suspect IF the non soft proofed image looks good with the profile used to make the print.
I know. It seems exactly opposite. But it's similar to the way I remember soft proofing always working, with several different CRT and LCD monitors before I got the NEC. Some of the effect gets lost in the sRGB conversion of the screen captures, but you can still see some of it in the attached image. The Pro 100 print looks like the un-proofed image, with the darkest and lightest black and white squares indiscernible in the print, but very much discernible in the soft-proof. And notice how the colors are muted in the soft-proofed image (the un-proofed image lost some vividness in the sRGB conversion).
Ilford did a fine art printing webinar the first of the year, using a Eizo wide gamut monitor, and they mentioned that soft proofing didn't really work well. Unfortunately Ilford went bankrupt, so I doubt the webinar is still available
-
Ilford did a fine art printing webinar the first of the year, using a Eizo wide gamut monitor, and they mentioned that soft proofing didn't really work well. Unfortunately Ilford went bankrupt, so I doubt the webinar is still available
Hum...well, Ilford is wrong...soft proofing works really well if you know how to do it. Besides, not sure I would give much credence to a company that ain't around anymore, ya know what I mean?
-
The situation has definitely changed since I installed the v1.1 firmware. Still have some things to try, but things have improved, on all counts.
-
Ilford did a fine art printing webinar the first of the year, using a Eizo wide gamut monitor, and they mentioned that soft proofing didn't really work well. Unfortunately Ilford went bankrupt, so I doubt the webinar is still available
Good because it's wrong, so not so unfortunate in that respect.
-
The situation has definitely changed since I installed the v1.1 firmware. Still have some things to try, but things have improved, on all counts.
Good to hear that things have improved since you made changes and what a shame that an Ilford employee put out such poor information - soft proofing is such a boon to working accurately (and saving time, money and frustration) and the inclusion in LR later versions a great step forward
-
Good to hear that things have improved since you made changes and what a shame that an Ilford employee put out such poor information - soft proofing is such a boon to working accurately (and saving time, money and frustration) and the inclusion in LR later versions a great step forward
I played with it some more last night and I think the firmware update really did help. I also played with soft proofing in LR last night. I never really tried it seriously in LR before, partially because I've just never had a problem with any of my iPF6300 prints, and partially because the last time I looked at soft proofing seriously was a few years ago, before I started using Lightroom. Soft proofing raw in Lightroom seems like it will be better, and I like the way Lightroom allows making "proof copies".
Thanks to everyone who provided valuable feedback. You are all too kind.