# Pixma Pro 9000 II prints are dark



## kyamon (Apr 8, 2013)

I have a problem with calibration for print...
My prints always come out much darker than they appear on the screen. I realize that this is a general problem that is treated a gazillion times online, but to the best of my knowledge I do things right. Yet this is obviously not the case, and I am wondering where my problem might be - any help is greatly appreciated.

So, here is what I have and do:
1. Pixma Pro 9000 Mark II, using only original ink cartridges
2. Imac 24", running LR4
3. Mostly Ilford Galerie Prestige Smooth Pearl with the according ICC profile (re-downloaded today)
4. Screen calibrated using Spyder4Pro
5. I do not have an ideal workspace with some outside light hitting my screen directly (but turning it away changes nothing).
6. Don't know if that matters, but I shoot mostly with a 7D, now also with a 5Diii, 95% raw; raw conversion, PP, and printing all in/from LR.

I don't print regularly (ambitious amateur), but I was never happy with what I got back from commercial printing services, so I decided to get myself a good printer. At first this worked out nicely, and the prints matched the screen well. But since a few months ago this is not the case anymore. Right around the time when I purchased the first boxes of paper after Ilford had changed the packaging of the Smooth Pearl paper, my prints started showing too much red (could be a saturation issue, or something else?). This now magically solved itself, but instead they look a lot darker than on the screen. For all I know the paper itself did not change with the packaging, nevertheless the dates almost coincided... The SpyderPro was sort of my last hope before getting a new screen and office, so I purchased that today. Unfortunately It made not enough of a difference (it did make one, but not enough).

My prime suspicion is the imac screen (I found online that these screens are not ideal), or my workspace. Are there other, simpler things that I should first try?

Many thanks in advance


----------



## John (Apr 8, 2013)

make sure that u calibrate your monitor such that the luminosity is around 80 or 90 (cd/m2). this is critical. it is likely that your monitor will look too dark to you. that is ok. get used to it. this is the luminosity of paper. if the monitor brightness is set properly, then the images will look like what u c on your monitor. you need to adjust the brightness of your images to a properly calibrated monitor so that the brightness of what u c on the monitor is the same as what u c in print. ur prints will always b too dark until u do this.


----------



## Botts (Apr 8, 2013)

John said:


> make sure that u calibrate your monitor such that the luminosity is around 80 or 90 (cd/m2). this is critical. it is likely that your monitor will look too dark to you. that is ok. get used to it. this is the luminosity of paper. if the monitor brightness is set properly, then the images will look like what u c on your monitor. you need to adjust the brightness of your images to a properly calibrated monitor so that the brightness of what u c on the monitor is the same as what u c in print. ur prints will always b too dark until u do this.



John nailed it. If your iMac display is set to full brightness, no printer could match the brightness. Even my comparably dim (to your iMac) MacBook Pro is too bright at 332 cd/m2. 

One trick you can do, is pickup some 4x6 paper of the same type as your larger paper, that way you can print a hard proof before you go to your larger, more expensive paper.


----------



## kyamon (Apr 8, 2013)

Thank you for the tip. I tried that just now, and with the screen set to 80 cd/m2 or less the darkness indeed looks better. However, the photo now again looks like it got a bit too much red. Is this a saturation issue or is it really red only that I get too much of?
I indeed made lots of test-prints today, using 4x6 paper. As a result, I ran out of one of the inks  Will have to wait a couple of days now before I can make more tests, but I have a number of prints where I played with the settings in "print adjustments" (bottom options in the print section of LR4). But these do not really have the desired effect and seem to reduce the overall quality of the print.

Is the brightness why many pro's do not like apple monitors? Or is it because the calibration does not work properly?


----------



## Ladislav (Apr 8, 2013)

I'm just fighting the similar issue when printing from LR 4.4 (prints are dark and partially desaturated) but my setup is Pixma MG 5450 + two DELL IPS screens (not Mac). I just thought that my screens are incorrectly calibrated and that using calibration probe could solve it. I'm surprised it doesn't.


----------



## hhelmbold (Apr 8, 2013)

kyamon said:


> 6. Don't know if that matters, but I shoot mostly with a 7D, now also with a 5Diii, 95% raw; raw conversion, PP, and printing all in/from LR.



Personally I think Lightroom is the problem. I have had this issue for a very long time and Adobe can't give me a solution. There is something about Canon printers and Lightroom that is not quite happy. Some prints will even print is a sepia tone from lightroom and I have considered that it might be because I shoot in Adobe RGB and not sRGB, but I could not nail the problem.

Easiest solution.... Install Canon's Easy Photo Print, save your photo as a TIFF file and print from there and print the same TIFF from Lightroom - this will tell you where the problem lies.


----------



## pete vella (Apr 8, 2013)

hard copy to 4x6 works if it is the same paper. have tou tried easyprint pro plugin for L4. i may help.


----------



## hhelmbold (Apr 8, 2013)

pete vella said:


> hard copy to 4x6 works if it is the same paper. have tou tried easyprint pro plugin for L4. i may help.



Who makes the easyprint Pro plugin? I would like to give it a shot too. I still think he should print from a completely different program first, just to take Lightroom out of the equation - but seeing that I have the same problems I can maybe experiment with this plugin so long ;D


----------



## pete vella (Apr 8, 2013)

http://www.usa.canon.com/app/html/EPP_Pro_v1-3/EPPPro/01/01.html latest update work in L4


----------



## pete vella (Apr 8, 2013)

http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2012/pixma_pro1_color_mode_presets.htmlp better link on tutorial. its for the canon pro 1 but the software is the same


----------



## hhelmbold (Apr 8, 2013)

Just for the record - I use a Pixma iP4940 printer and not the Pixma Pro series. This is a general Canon problem and not just on the Pro series. It has to do with the way Lightroom handles the printers. It is very difficult to explain exactly what the photos looks like and people will read "this guy battles with dark prints" but unless you actually see the results, it is difficult to convince people it is not just a wrong setting.

For example... I will print a series of 4x6 prints from LR, all prints taken the same day and same conditions. The first 2 prints might print fine and then suddenly the 3rd print will come out like Sepia and the 4th very dark. After that if I re-print the first 2 that was printing correctly will be very dark or the tonal range all mixed up.

It is a very annoying and hard to troubleshoot problem


----------



## kyamon (Apr 8, 2013)

pete vella said:


> hard copy to 4x6 works if it is the same paper. have tou tried easyprint pro plugin for L4. i may help.



Good idea. Will try that as soon as I can.
Does Adobe use the same print engine in all its software? If I print from Photoshop will I have the same issues as in Lightroom?

The print profile is from the Ilford website, for my paper/printer combination (and downloaded today...). The issues I have at the moment have been mainly on the small 4x6 prints, but also on the 5x7 version of this paper. THe 4x6 is a bit heavier, and Ilford provides a different profile for it, but I have always been comparing the same things.

Privatebydesign: Your point about the lighting is a good one. What I want, however, is a reference point. And I want that to be my screen and the photo that I take from the printer which is located next to the screen. From there I can then decide if I make a photo brighter or darker, depending on where it will hang. And at the moment the difference is simply too big. Granted, the photo that I have been using as a reference is a fairly dark portrait. It is dark on screen, and when printed it becomes completely useless. 

Somehow I also have a weird feeling about ink usage - I had a warning that my PM ink cartridge was almost empty and that I should replace it. I had no replacement, and it was only _almost_ empty - could this lead to color distortions? I would find this quite bad, but is it possible at all? By now it is completely empty, and the printer refuses to print (which is what I would expect...)


----------



## atvinyard (Apr 8, 2013)

I haven't used my Canon printer (it was a pretty cheap one)for a while, so I can't speak directly to Canons, but I know with Epson, when you go to print there are options about color management. You have to make sure the printer is set not to do any color management, so that LR can manage everything. I always print with perceptual intent, an appropriate ICC profile loaded, and color management on the printer turned off. If you don't turn the color management on the printer off, it doesn't come out right. You may already know that, so hopefully i'm not wasting your time. I thought it might be a good thing to check, though, if you hadn't thought to yet.


----------



## kyamon (Apr 8, 2013)

Yes, this is set correctly. If the printer does the color management then the prints look way worse even!

I have a question about the comparison between Lightroom and Easy-Photoprint (which I have never used). In lightroom I can use the Ilford ICC profile that matches my paper. In Easy-Photoprint I don't seem to have this option, I can only tell it that I am using matte photopaper... Am I missing something? If this is correct, then the comparison with LR does not work since the issue could be with LR or with the ICC...




atvinyard said:


> I haven't used my Canon printer (it was a pretty cheap one)for a while, so I can't speak directly to Canons, but I know with Epson, when you go to print there are options about color management. You have to make sure the printer is set not to do any color management, so that LR can manage everything. I always print with perceptual intent, an appropriate ICC profile loaded, and color management on the printer turned off. If you don't turn the color management on the printer off, it doesn't come out right. You may already know that, so hopefully i'm not wasting your time. I thought it might be a good thing to check, though, if you hadn't thought to yet.


----------



## RendrLab (Apr 8, 2013)

I have the Pro 9000 MKII and had the same problem (for the most part) that you are encountering. My fix was printing from Photoshop or LR by using the Easy Print Plug-Ins. They will still let you use custom ICC Profiles for the type of paper you are using, and they come out beautifully. I tried changing print settings in Lightroom and Photoshop, but for some reason, they always come out better with the Easy Print plug-ins.
Also, you do not have to convert RAW prints to TIFF prior to print as long as you have the Canon XPS Print Driver installed as it handles RAW prints with ease.
Go to Canon's website and download all of the updated software you need from there. You don't even have to have any of it pre-installed or the CD handy as you do with any of the EOS utilities.


----------



## RendrLab (Apr 8, 2013)

kyamon said:


> Yes, this is set correctly. If the printer does the color management then the prints look way worse even!
> 
> I have a question about the comparison between Lightroom and Easy-Photoprint (which I have never used). In lightroom I can use the Ilford ICC profile that matches my paper. In Easy-Photoprint I don't seem to have this option, I can only tell it that I am using matte photopaper... Am I missing something? If this is correct, then the comparison with LR does not work since the issue could be with LR or with the ICC...
> 
> ...



http://usa.canon.com/CUSA/assets/app/html/EN/html/iccg04.htm


----------



## kyamon (Apr 8, 2013)

Sure, nothing is absolute. But it makes sense to have a setup where I know that I get a certain correspondence if I prepare a picture on my screen and look at the printed version at the same desk, with the same light. Any modification I can take from there. If I have to make my picture look wrong on my screen to look right on the print (looked at under the same conditions), then it gets too complicated for me.

So what I am looking for is pretty much what you are telling me to do. Except that I have set the screen brightness low (as it has been suggested here), the screen is properly calibrated, the ICC profile for printer/paper are correct, etc. I simply can not find the issue.

But I have not yet tried EPP. I have the plugin installed now, so I hope to be able to test it soon.

I would also like to add (the obvious?) that "dark", as I initially chose it, is not a particularly accurate characteristic. There is, of course, much more to it like saturation or contrast etc. If I put the print under a bright light it looks brighter, but it still does not look like the photo on the screen. Same if I turn the screen brightness down.



privatebydesign said:


> What do you want a reference point to?
> 
> There are no absolutes in colour management, you can set "your" reference point anywhere you want. If you want your current screen calibration and luminosity to be your reference point and your prints are dark you need to put more light on them. If the luminosity of your screen and a piece of paper next to it (preferably in a viewing booth) are not the same you need to adjust the brightness of one or the other. Once you have that dialed in, along with screen calibration, if your prints are not the same as your screen then you are looking at printer/paper profiles, assuming all your colour workflow settings make sense.
> 
> Start at the beginning, how bright do you want your screen, take everything else from there.


----------



## RendrLab (Apr 8, 2013)

Try the EPP Plug-ins when you can and follow the link I posted on how to select the appropriate ICC profile for your paper inside the utility. Make sure you install the XPS driver if you are wanting to print RAW files from LR or else you will have to convert to 8-Bit TIFF prior to print. The XPS Driver will print 16-bit color files, which the regular driver will not. Easy Print also works inside of Photoshop & would strongly recommend using it for all printing to the Pro 9000.
I was so upset when I first bought mine and colors came out all dark, oversaturated and blah. But Easy Print definitely shows what the printer is capable of producing. Just don't expect miracles with B&W prints as they are definitely the weak spot of this printer.
If you do a bit of research, people say you can get the same results out of Photoshop & LR without EasyPrint, but Color accuracy is a huge part of my job and even I couldn't make them come out quite the same straight from PS & LR.


----------



## kyamon (Apr 8, 2013)

Yep, I will do that and report back. I have no clue though, how long it will take me to get the missing cartridge - I am in Switzerland and the shops I went to today do not have particularly large selection of photo-specific ink 

About the XPS - these are windows printer drivers, right? I am using a mac, and I believe that I do have the right driver installed. But I will double-check that as well.



RendrLab said:


> Try the EPP Plug-ins when you can and follow the link I posted on how to select the appropriate ICC profile for your paper inside the utility. Make sure you install the XPS driver if you are wanting to print RAW files from LR or else you will have to convert to 8-Bit TIFF prior to print. The XPS Driver will print 16-bit color files, which the regular driver will not. Easy Print also works inside of Photoshop & would strongly recommend using it for all printing to the Pro 9000.
> I was so upset when I first bought mine and colors came out all dark, oversaturated and blah. But Easy Print definitely shows what the printer is capable of producing. Just don't expect miracles with B&W prints as they are definitely the weak spot of this printer.
> If you do a bit of research, people say you can get the same results out of Photoshop & LR without EasyPrint, but Color accuracy is a huge part of my job and even I couldn't make them come out quite the same straight from PS & LR.


----------



## agierke (Apr 8, 2013)

i have also found that creating my own custom ICC profiles for the papers i use much more reliable than using each manufacturer's canned ICC profiles. the canned profiles will get you close, but if you have exacting expectations then you really need to create your own custom profiles.

i use the Color Monkey by X-rite to do both screen and print ICC profiles. it does a fairly decent job but i have never....NEVER....been fully satisfied with any print that has ever come out of an inkjet printer. there is always something that is just slightly off...but i end up just chalking it up to differences between the two different formats or the random and frequent printer errors that occur.

i absolutely loath desktop printing...its a horrendous task to undertake if you have the highest expectations. trouble is, making a print is ingrained upon my consciousness as "part" of the photographic process. my wife knows when i am doing prints by the stream of expletives coming from my office and she knows to steer clear of me for a few hours.

anyway....good luck. seriously.....


----------



## kyamon (Apr 8, 2013)

;D 
My wife knows that any time I complain about some technical aspect of my photos I am going to spend money... But in this particular case even a $2k screen or a Pro-1 printer would not do the job, I guess. So I did like you did, and switched to indecent language. And asked for help... (which I got, and am very glad about)




agierke said:


> i have also found that creating my own custom ICC profiles for the papers i use much more reliable than using each manufacturer's canned ICC profiles. the canned profiles will get you close, but if you have exacting expectations then you really need to create your own custom profiles.
> 
> i use the Color Monkey by X-rite to do both screen and print ICC profiles. it does a fairly decent job but i have never....NEVER....been fully satisfied with any print that has ever come out of an inkjet printer. there is always something that is just slightly off...but i end up just chalking it up to differences between the two different formats or the random and frequent printer errors that occur.
> 
> ...


----------



## wopbv4 (Apr 8, 2013)

Hi, 

it is also important to have colour accurate lighting to evaluate your prints.

I use:
http://www.imagescience.com.au/products/GrafiLite-Mode.html


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 9, 2013)

agierke said:


> i have also found that creating my own custom ICC profiles for the papers i use much more reliable than using each manufacturer's canned ICC profiles. the canned profiles will get you close, but if you have exacting expectations then you really need to create your own custom profiles.
> 
> i use the Color Monkey by X-rite to do both screen and print ICC profiles. it does a fairly decent job but i have never....NEVER....been fully satisfied with any print that has ever come out of an inkjet printer. there is always something that is just slightly off...but i end up just chalking it up to differences between the two different formats or the random and frequent printer errors that occur.
> 
> ...



Closest answer yet.

Color management is...well, prepare for insanity. You'll be insane by the time you figure it out, so it doesn't hurt to be at least a bit crazy going into it.

The ColorMunki, by all reports, is a very capable instrument. The basic profiling software that X-Rite ships it with is not bad, all things considered, but leaves lots of room for improvement.

If you want the ultimate in quality, pair a spectrophotometer (such as the ColorMunki or its bigger brother, the i1 Pro) with ArgyllCMS. It's a free, open source, command line toolset. Awesome, awesome software.

There's also another factor worth mentioning. Even with the best color management, there are still limitations. All devices have limited color gamuts, and it's very common to want to do stuff with images and devices where the gamuts don't overlap. Generally, your camera will have the biggest gamut; your working color space probably won't be able to encode all the colors your camera can capture; your monitor certainly won't be able to display all the colors your working space can encode; and your printer will be able to print some colors you can't get on your monitor but it won't be able to print others your monitor can display. Oh -- and the paper you print on has a _huge_ effect on the colors it can print. What to do with out-of-gamut colors is where the rubber meets the road...and where a lot of the problems happen in well-color-managed environments, and not something one can really answer in a forum post....

However, with the right equipment and skills, I can assure you, it _is_ possible to, for example, photograph a painting and make a print of it such that the artist herself has trouble telling original from copy in a side-by-side comparison. But the road from where most photographers are to there is a long and steep and bumpy one....

Cheers,

b&


----------



## Quasimodo (Apr 9, 2013)

Very interesting thread. I have the pro 1 myself, but also struggle with the luminocity, even after callibrating with my x-rite i1 Display Pro. As with the OP it always get darker, and I will try to wing it on gefuhl


----------



## marcel (Apr 9, 2013)

Hi, I have the pixma pro 9500. It is a problem of duplicate profiles. It is with these printers. I have solved the problem using the profile Pro Photo RGB in photoshop and profile of paper in the printer. The quality is very good and I sell lots of prints.
If you need to try the printer plugin is Easy Photo Print Pro, remember: PRO.
Check the paper profile, must be GPSPP11.
Another thing to consider is that if you have the printer to your side is enough testing on pieces of paper to get an idea of how to be in the paper. It is useless to calibrate the monitor with expensive equipment if the end result is on your side. If you send your work to someone far away, you have to be sure that he will see it as you see it, in this case you need to calibrate your monitor like the other person. But if this is not the case it is sufficient to test the printer, after all photos are equal. I spent 35 in the darkroom, and I can assure you it is a technique that never fails.


----------



## hhelmbold (Apr 9, 2013)

kyamon said:


> I have a question about the comparison between Lightroom and Easy-Photoprint (which I have never used). In lightroom I can use the Ilford ICC profile that matches my paper. In Easy-Photoprint I don't seem to have this option, I can only tell it that I am using matte photopaper... Am I missing something? If this is correct, then the comparison with LR does not work since the issue could be with LR or with the ICC...



I think you have been bombarded with so many answers that you might be trying to fix everything at once too ;D If the prints are indeed the same as the problems I am facing I would suggest you start to elimanate factors in order to get to the root problem. Forget about screen calibrations and custom ICC profiles and ILFORD profiles and start with basic settings.

Photoshop and Lightroom does not use the same print engines, so you can use Photoshop as your 2nd application for testing instead of the Canon Easy Photo Print. But what I suggest is you make a print in LR and in Photoshop where you use the same printer settings and paper type. This will tell you quick enough if LR is the problem or not. Once you have that answer you can go to step 2 and start calibrating your software of choice. Changing too many things at once is going to create new problems once it suddenly works... you won't know which of the 100 solutions or combinations of them actually did the trick ;D


----------



## Leejo (Apr 9, 2013)

I unfortunately don't have one of these quality printers,
however I overheard recentlly on a podcast with Martin Bailey (MartinBaileyPhotography.com),
who currently uses an imagePROGRAF_iPF6350_Large_Format,
hat the printer driver configuration somewhere stored the Lightroom version,
and anytime there is an LR upgrade he needed to modify the config file to suite.

If you are seeing differences after some point in upgrading LR then this could be 
an indication of a similar problem.


----------



## jondave (Apr 9, 2013)

agierke said:


> i have also found that creating my own custom ICC profiles for the papers i use much more reliable than using each manufacturer's canned ICC profiles. the canned profiles will get you close, but if you have exacting expectations then you really need to create your own custom profiles.
> 
> i use the Color Monkey by X-rite to do both screen and print ICC profiles. it does a fairly decent job but i have never....NEVER....been fully satisfied with any print that has ever come out of an inkjet printer. there is always something that is just slightly off...but i end up just chalking it up to differences between the two different formats or the random and frequent printer errors that occur.
> 
> ...



+1

I never did trust the canned profiles... I used them once, uggh. Never again. 

Customised ICC profiles for BOTH your monitor and printer is the only answer. I'm personally using an X-Rite i1, and the difference vs canned profiles is night and day. Colormunki is ok, but the best results can only be had with a spectro or having your profiles done through a color lab.

Another side benefit of buying your own spectro to create your own profiles is that you will be able to use 3rd party ink and paper (only the good quality ones of course). The money you'll save will more than make up the initial cost of the spectro, believe me.


----------



## kyamon (Apr 9, 2013)

jondave said:


> Another side benefit of buying your own spectro to create your own profiles is that you will be able to use 3rd party ink and paper (only the good quality ones of course). The money you'll save will more than make up the initial cost of the spectro, believe me.



Interesting point - but I always assumed that cheap inks also have drawbacks with regards to longevity, resistance to sunlight etc. 

In any case, thank you all for the interesting answers and suggestions I sure have a lot to try and play with now!

I did manage to obtain the missing ink, so I continued a few tests. The comparison between prints from LR, PS, and EPP is really astonishing - after seeing this I really wonder what the point of an ICC profile for a specific paper/printer combo is if the software in the end does what it feels like anyway! (on a side note - for the Ilford 4x6 paper I am using, which is 310 micron, the ICC is GPSPP12, not 11.)
The picture I was using yesterday most of the time (dark portrait, brown hair and a moderately pale face) turned out too dark in all three programs. Differences are barely noticeable, details in the hair are lost because it gets too dark, and the face turns red. The print is basically useless.
I now tried a different pic, this time a bird sitting on a black PVC tube with a green/white bg (completely oof). Here, the difference between print and screen are considerably smaller, making it in the end really only an issue about adjusting the settings to match where the photo will ultimately hang. If I compare PS, EPP, and LR with this pic, I see interesting color tone differences, in particular on the PVC tube. Ideally this should be dark-grey'ish, and what PS gives me looks pretty close. In contrast, EPP produces something that is almost purple while LR is slightly on the greenish side. But the differences are so small that I would probably not see that unless I have the prints on top of each other. Someone with a better-trained eye might notice (and unfortunately I can not quantify any of what I just said). But it certainly is something I could live with.
The problem is, of course, that I also have the other type of photos, and that with the current settings I just know that some types of prints come out bad.

I guess what this comes down to is a confirmation of what some of you said - in order to get things right one has to do it manually, with or without the help of a spectrometer. Very disappointing.
Just for fun I tried something new - I printed something directly from my camera, using PictBridge. Much to my relief it did not appear to produce better results  (who uses that anyways?)


----------



## TonyMM (Apr 9, 2013)

I may have missed it in reading this thread, but do you have the "Soft Proofing" box checked in the LR4 Develop module with the correct paper profile selected under "Create Proof Copy" ? It is pretty clearly noticeable on my NEC Multisync PA241W monitor that my monitor image turns darker when I activate the Soft Proofing box. 

I am having pretty good monitor to printed image matching up on my Epson Stylus R1900 - but I do have to adjust Brightness and Contrast in the Print module to get a close match -- and the level of Brightness/Contrast needed varies between paper profile selection. LR4 remembers the last settings you printed with for each profile and comes up when you go into Print module for printing after you select the appropriate paper profile above.

Tony M


----------



## kyamon (Apr 9, 2013)

TonyMM said:


> I may have missed it in reading this thread, but do you have the "Soft Proofing" box checked in the LR4 Develop module with the correct paper profile selected under "Create Proof Copy" ? It is pretty clearly noticeable on my NEC Multisync PA241W monitor that my monitor image turns darker when I activate the Soft Proofing box.
> 
> I am having pretty good monitor to printed image matching up on my Epson Stylus R1900 - but I do have to adjust Brightness and Contrast in the Print module to get a close match -- and the level of Brightness/Contrast needed varies between paper profile selection. LR4 remembers the last settings you printed with for each profile and comes up when you go into Print module for printing after you select the appropriate paper profile above.
> 
> Tony M



Thanks, Tony. I had not used the soft-proofing in LR, and you are right, the difference is considerable. What it does is that it seems to remove some of the color saturation when I check the soft proof box, but what remains is the excessive red in the prints.
I had played with the brightness/contrast settings in the print module, and I can get the print to look better in terms of colour. But I do get the feeling that the photo becomes softer in general.

Is it possible that my dark test-photo is just a particularly hard case? The Pixma Pro 9000 MII is known to not perform great with B/W, so could it be that it just isn't so great as soon as there is a lot of black (or dark) involved? How does the printer produce a black point? I noticed with these tests that even though an estimated 10-20% of the photo are "black", the black cartridge was only used by about 1/5 or less, while I went through almost an entire magenta (the M, not the PM). I presume it uses a lot of that for the brown hair and the skin tones, but that much?


----------



## kyamon (Apr 9, 2013)

Just for the record - I had a look at the ICC profiles from Ilford. 
GSPP12 and GSPP11 are identical (for all I can tell) - makes sense since the supposed difference is only the thickness of the paper, but the paper is otherwise the same. What surprises me more is that they date from 10/2009. 
This gets me back to the question what these are good for if each software produces a different result in print, even though the same printer/paper profile has been used...


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 9, 2013)

kyamon said:


> Interesting point - but I always assumed that cheap inks also have drawbacks with regards to longevity, resistance to sunlight etc.



Third-party inks, as a rule, are less expensive than manufacturer-branded inks...but they're not all cheap. Lyson, for example, makes some very, very good inks, including a number of printer-specific alternate inksets that are superior in every way to what the manufacturers offer for those particular printers.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## kyamon (Apr 9, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> kyamon said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting point - but I always assumed that cheap inks also have drawbacks with regards to longevity, resistance to sunlight etc.
> ...



Good to know, thanks.


----------



## TonyMM (Apr 9, 2013)

Also -- watch the Histogram at the top of the panel in Develop/Soft Proofing as you click in the Soft Proofing check box (underneath the image) -- you will note that the histogram of Red/Green/Blue concentrations changes significantly with Soft Proofing activated and not activated. This may be causing the "Red Shift" you're seeing. For example, when I look at one of my images in Develop/Soft Proofing checked and not checked, I see a big shift increase in the number of Red pixel concentration shifting to higher end -- this would indicate to me that the printer will be told to print more red content, particularly in the upper end (I'm using Red River Polar Pearl Metallic paper profile in this example).

So, this provides an opportunity to adjust both the Hue and Saturation red values if you want to more closely duplicate what your monitor is showing you. It will also give you a reading on whether or not some color values are "out of gamut" (will not print) on the specific paper. This again, will give you an opportunity to go back and change hue/saturation to try to bring that portion of the print back into printing full gamut.

Pretty useful, if tedious for some prints.

Tony M


----------



## kyamon (Apr 9, 2013)

this is really frustrating... I am close to giving up and just try to avoid in the future to print dark photos. And otherwise use PS to print...

I really find it unbelievable that this is not a solved problem. The fact that two programs from the same company produce different output on the same setup is miserable. These are computers, after all. They may not always do what we want, but they are pretty good at doing the same thing over and over again. So all we need is a reasonable way to calibrate. Once. And then it should work...

Or is it all just so sensitive that nothing is reproducible? Does a tiny change in the composition of the ink change everything? Does the temperature of my room change? Or is it only the amount of coffee I had before sitting down at my desk...? 

(as a side-note... I am a scientist and do experimental work. I know that things never work the first time around. But then someone works to understand what is going on and improves it, and ultimately something functioning results. In this case the fact that Canon, Ilford, and Adobe (or all the others) do not manage to produce a proper system together is outrageous. And it is not like this is a new problem in any way... OK, I am frustrated and will stop my rant here  )


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 9, 2013)

kyamon said:


> I really find it unbelievable that this is not a solved problem.



As I indicated in my first post on this thread, it _is_ a solved problem. It's just that the solution isn't obvious and requires equipment and skills.

Here's super over-simplified instructions to how to solve the problem:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Buy a spectrophotometer such as the i1 Pro or the Color Munki.
[*]Use said spectrophotometer to calibrate and profile your display.
[*]Again use said spectrophotometer to profile every combination of printer / ink / paper you use.
[*]Learn what to do with all those ICC profiles you've created. That includes things like soft proofing -- and there's a lot more to soft proofing than ticking a box in Photoshop. Much more. And that's just one small piece of the puzzle....
[*]For bonus points, use better software than that X-Rite ships with their instruments. They make some very good but very expensive profiling software that shouldn't be too hard to use. ArgyllCMS produces superlative quality and is free, but it's command-line only. There are other options, too.
[/list]

I assure you, that's "all" you need to do to solve your problems within the physical limits of the various pieces of hardware. Problem is, it's not an easy solution....

Cheers,

b&


----------



## kyamon (Apr 10, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> kyamon said:
> 
> 
> > I really find it unbelievable that this is not a solved problem.
> ...



OK, I have calmed down a bit by now 

I know that there is a way to get prints look the way they should. I know there are people (professionals) who are skilled enough to get these systems to work properly.

What I meant was that I find it weird that there is no simple solution to get this to work at home, for amateurs who can not invest the time and money to go through the entire recipe you described (command-line is not even the issue, I would not have a problem with that...). My thought when I purchased that printer was that it is a way to get around the randomness of large-scale commercial photo-printing companies. I thought that if I get a printer, use that company's own ink, quality paper, and established software I would get a system that is close to plug-and-play. But that is far from the truth... That is what annoyed me, and that is what I meant by "unsolved problem".

Granted, if I want to make the best possible espresso in my own kitchen I can not just get a professional espresso-machine. I also have to learn which beans to buy, how to grind them, how much of them to use, how much pressure to apply, etc. But since we are dealing essentially with chemistry and computers in the case of photo-printing, I thought that things would be sufficiently well standardised and controlled to make the procedure simple. I think if I would take to photos with different cameras of the same type, using the same settings, I would get identical pictures - or is that not the case? That is what I also expect from printing.

Essentially what this all means is that for any non-professional (or for me, at least) it is simply impossible to get great prints without investing a lot more money and a lot more time. Both of which I am able to invest only to a certain extent. It just looks like I have to reduce my expectations, and that frustrates me.


----------



## jondave (Apr 10, 2013)

kyamon said:


> Interesting point - but I always assumed that cheap inks also have drawbacks with regards to longevity, resistance to sunlight etc.



OEM inks are not as trumped up as you think they are. Epson and Canon make it seem so because it's in their interests to protect the HUGE margins they make on it.

The are a lot of crap inks out there, don't get me wrong. But the best ones are not hard to find, and perform even better than OEM (in terms of color gamut for the most part). And they save you heaps of money - the best ones don't even cost a quarter of OEM. Guilt-free color-lab quality prints that costs pennies, yeah baby. It's quite addicting actually.

In fact, it is the same OEM ink manufacturers that make the the top of the line refill inks. 



kyamon said:


> Essentially what this all means is that for any non-professional (or for me, at least) it is simply impossible to get great prints without investing a lot more money and a lot more time. Both of which I am able to invest only to a certain extent. It just looks like I have to reduce my expectations, and that frustrates me.



It actually depends what your definition of great prints are. In my opinion, what you're getting is already great - in comparison to what most people not using LR/Photoshop, icc profiles, and professional home printers get. 

But it seems what you want is the peak of Mt. Everest, which means you do have to invest time and money to reach. Nothing comes easy my friend, such is the bitch called Color Management. So I say take the plunge, get a spectro. Best investment you'll ever make.


----------



## kyamon (Apr 10, 2013)

jondave said:


> OEM inks are not as trumped up as you think they are. Epson and Canon make it seem so because it's in their interests to protect the HUGE margins they make on it.



This is certainly true - after all, they have to pay for the printers that they give away basically for free...



jondave said:


> It actually depends what your definition of great prints are. In my opinion, what you're getting is already great - in comparison to what most people not using LR/Photoshop, icc profiles, and professional home printers.
> 
> But it seems what you want is the peak of Mt. Everest, which means you do have to invest time and money to reach. Nothing comes easy my friend, such is the bitch called Color Management. So I say take the plunge, get a spectro. Best investment you'll ever make.



No... Mt. Whitney would be good enough. Or Mont Blanc, since it is around the corner from here 
Maybe you are right and I should look into spectrometers...


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 10, 2013)

kyamon said:


> Essentially what this all means is that for any non-professional (or for me, at least) it is simply impossible to get great prints without investing a lot more money and a lot more time. Both of which I am able to invest only to a certain extent. It just looks like I have to reduce my expectations, and that frustrates me.



Believe me, I feel your pain. Been feeling it for years....

I think my best advice for somebody willing to settle for less than perfection but looking for something better than hit-and-miss, my advice would boil down to this:

At the very least, you _must_ calibrate and profile your display. There are lots of options out there, most not bad. When in doubt, get something made by X-Rite. If you're on a budget, get the ColorMunki Smile for $100. And part of the process will involve properly setting your display's brightness -- the devices will measure the brightness and either interactively tell you how to adjust the display's brightness (and other controls) or they'll automatically do it all for you.

If you want the cheapest up-front costs, stick with the printer manufacturer's own ink and paper and use their ICC profiles. You'll pay more in the long run for supplies, but if everything is coming from one of the major manufacturers, especially Canon, Epson, and HP, the results are generally quite good.

If you don't mind a bit larger capital investment in exchange for a great deal of flexibility as well as cheaper operating costs, get a ColorMunki Photo for $450. It'll do a better job of profiling your display than the Smile, plus you can then profile any combination of printer, ink, and paper. The software that comes with it is quite capable, though there are certainly better options out there. But it's all very simple and easy and you'll be up and running in no time -- all for the low, low price of $450, so call right now! Operators are standing by!

You'll also either want to invest in a decent book on color management or be prepared to do lots of research and experimentation on your own. I went the latter route so I can't recommend any books, but I'd suggest going to the library and / or a local bookstore with a good selection of computer-related books and just start browsing until you find something that speaks to you.

Start with that. It may well be all you need. Indeed, lots of people are more than satisfied with the results they get from these products.

If you find yourself wanting even more, the good news is that the ColorMunki Photo is a very capable instrument for a very reasonable price; it's just the software that's crippled (though in a good way that makes it very easy and painless to use). You can use the instrument with basically any profiling suite, so the investment is a good one that'll last you a long time.

The next step up from the ColorMunki is the i1 Pro. It comes in various packages, but the only difference is the bundled software. If you go that route, I'd suggest the cheapest one you can get (it'll probably be just under a kilobuck) and use ArgyllCMS. The X-Rite software is capable and easy to use, but you have to spend lots of money to get to their good stuff.

For photography and graphic arts in general, there's no need to spend any more than that. The next step up first gets you to high-volume devices designed to do nothing but automated reading of charts all day long. Then you're getting into the prepress devices that, frankly, though they've got much better specifications don't actually deliver any meaningfully better real-world performance. And then you get into scientific research gear that'll cost more than your house.

Hope this helps....

Cheers,

b&


----------

