Andrew,
Thank you for directing me to your video - it is very informative and I see that you have many more videos I need to watch!
That said, my situation is not that the print is too dark. Perhaps my OP did not clearly express the issue, so I will give it another try:
1 - I am using a BenQ 2700 monitor calibrated within the last 2 weeks using a Spyder5
2 - I am viewing my prints after drying using an Ott desk lamp near my monitor
3 - I am printing known test prints - Datacolor’s for color and Northlight’s for B+W
4 - I am printing from Lightroom
5 - I am initially viewing the image in LR Develop mode with soft proofing turned on and selecting the appropriate paper profile and I am NOT making any adjustments to the test images, just looking at them
6 - I am printing from LR Print mode after selecting the appropriate paper profile and I am NOT making any adjustment (e.g., the brightness and contrast sliders you point out as being kludges)
7 - when I Bought my printer I also bought some Canon paper - Pro Luster and Pro Premium Matte to get myself started
8 - I can make nice prints using the Luster but not the Matte
9 - So I decided to try some other papers and purchased a couple of sample sets from Hahnemühle and Red River
10 - to be sure I am comparing apples to apples I have been making test prints as described above for each of the papers in the kits
11 - I am getting good prints to evaluate the various papers including Canon’s Luster and Premium Matte papers
12 - So I know from this that it is possible to make a good print using my Pixma Pro-10 and OEM inks on all of the papers tested
OK, so that is the background. My issue is that when I try to make a print using several of my own images using soft proofing in LR and the proper profile for Canon Premium Matte the onscreen image looks terrible - overall low contrast, muddy, and hazy. If I just make a straight print (i.e., after editing in LR but without any changes made in soft proofing) I get a print that is much closer to the LR screen image in Develop mode with soft proofing OFF. So, while the resulting print may not be anything I’d consider finished and worthy of wall hanging, it is not a terrible print - it just doesn’t look like the screen image in soft proofing which is much, much worse.
This only appears to happen for Canon Premium Matte among the matte papers I have tested thus far. For other papers, take Red River Polar Matte for instance, the straight print (using no adjustments, as described above) and the on screen soft proofing image and print are very comparable.
This lack of correspondence between the soft proof screen image and straight print for the Canon Premium Matte makes it very hard for me to know what my output print will look like if I make any adjustments to the master file in soft proofing. I bought about 150 sheets of this paper when I bought the printer - in retrospect and given the problem I am having, that was a foolish mistake, but what is done is done. Using the current combination I can’t realistically use this paper to learn to print, it is just too unpredictable. Still, having bought so much of it, I’d like to try and make use of it rather than pitch it.
So, in the spirit of experimentation I tried printing using Canon Premium Matte paper but with the profile for Red River Polar Matte (straight unadjusted test prints). The result is: a) better than the soft proof screen image when the Canon profile is used, and b) a better print than the straight test print where I used Canon’s appropriate profile.
To restate my questions then:
1 - is Canon’s profile for their Premium Matte paper just a lousy profile? And hence am I beating my head against a wall trying to get it to work?
2 - is there something I may be doing wrong with this one matte paper that I could easily fix and then get better results with it?
3 - Has anyone else encountered the same problem with this paper and profile and if so, how did you correct the issue?
4 - Has anyone found an alternative profile for this paper that works better for them?
OK, sorry for such a long winded post, but I wanted to be sure I provided as much info and clarity as I could think of. Thank you for your input. I look forward to watching more of you videos Andrew!