# Canon Pro-1 Question



## raggamuffin (Feb 24, 2015)

Hi all,

I've had my Pro-1 for nearly a year. I had a few questions. Firstly the prints I make look nothing like those taken on my camera. The colours are far too dark and I have to manually change brightness and saturations on every image prior to printing. This is taking a lot of trial and error and will be costly inks wise. Any ideas or recommendations to fix this?

Secondly is ink levels. For a long time it's said all inks have nearly run out. It warned that inks might run out mid print...and yet I've managed to print 10+ A3's with these warnings on. I'm wondering if the sensors for the ink levels are broken?

Finally, I want to use the printer to make art prints of drawings i've done. Can someone recommend a matte and high quality paper compatible with my printer for art prints?

Ed


----------



## tolusina (Feb 24, 2015)

Calibrate your monitor.
Profile each printer/ink/paper combination you intend to use, use the resulting icc or icm profile to soft proof before printing.

Visit websites of high line papers such as Hahnemule, Red River, Canson and the like, as a shopping tool, download icc profile for papers and your printer that look interesting, soft proof using those downloaded profiles and make your choice.
Once your chosen purchase arrives, create your own profile(s) to use with that paper, soft proof before printing.


----------



## tgara (Feb 24, 2015)

Your dark prints are likely due to your monitor being too bright. I had the same issue. Like tolusina said, calibrate your monitor and do it at about 50% brightness level. When you edit or print, remember to set the brightness at 50% (or whatever level you calibrated your monitor on) so you get a more accurate representation of what your print will look like. Also, remember that the monitor is projecting light from behind and through a screen, while a print is relying essentially on reflected ambient light. Those differences in the simple physics of how you view the images will result in differences in how the image is portrayed. 

Here's a good resource describing the problem and some solutions:

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/colour_management/prints_too_dark.html

Regarding your question on art paper, I've been using Red River paper for a couple months. Great stuff, recommended! They have a list of recommended papers for the Pro-1. The fine art papers are at the bottom of the page.

http://www.redrivercatalog.com/sbprinter/best-inkjet-photo-papers-for-canon-pro-1-printer/

As for the ink levels, it's probably a plot to get you to buy more ink earlier. ;D


----------



## danski0224 (Feb 24, 2015)

raggamuffin said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I've had my Pro-1 for nearly a year. I had a few questions. Firstly the prints I make look nothing like those taken on my camera. The colours are far too dark and I have to manually change brightness and saturations on every image prior to printing. This is taking a lot of trial and error and will be costly inks wise. Any ideas or recommendations to fix this?
> 
> ...



I had the same issue.

You need to calibrate your monitor.

If your monitor does not have an IPS panel, then you probably want to get a new one.

Some calibration tools will only do the monitor. If you want to make your own profiles for printing, then you need hardware/software that will allow you to create a printer profile and calibrate the monitor.

For paper, I'd suggest starting with the "fine art" papers offered by Canon, or the 3rd part papers that Canon supports with ICC profiles (example: some Moab papers on the Canon USA website). There are sample packs.

As mentioned above, there are other vendors that also provide ICC profiles for all of the papers and supported printers.

Canon also has the *free* "Print Studio Pro" plug-in for supported "professional" printers and it works with Lightroom, Photoshop and DPP.

A small caution: if you use Canon print drivers for Canon "fine art" paper, you will be forced to use very wide margins and no way to alter them.


----------



## LDS (Feb 24, 2015)

raggamuffin said:


> I had a few questions. Firstly the prints I make look nothing like those taken on my camera. The colours are far too dark and I have to manually change brightness and saturations on every image prior to printing. This is taking a lot of trial and error and will be costly inks wise. Any ideas or recommendations to fix this?



Printing is a process exactly like capturing an image. You can't just press the button  

Basically you'll need:


Calibrate the monitor - and set brightness to a level good to evaluate prints. Anyway, most monitor gamut could be smaller than printers like the PRO-1
Profile the printer for the given paper - many papers now come with good starting ICC profiles. To profile the printer, you need a spectrophotometer, the Canon utility AFAIK supports only some X-Rite models 
ICC profiles alone are not enough to "translate" automatically a screen image to a printed one, there are other variables which needs to be handle manually 
Select the "proper" paper for a given image. Not all images look good on every paper
Good printing applications (what do you use to print?) will let you proof (preview) how the final image will look, taking into account several parameters like inks and paper white poin. Some can also save them for later use.
Create/display a proof (print preview) (depends on what application you use to print), and then change parameters as you need to get close the image you want. Brightness and saturation are only two, you may want to change rendering intent, adjust contrast, sharpening, white balance, etc. etc., for example matter paper will have far less contrast than glossy ones
Print from this proof, and assess it after it dried under a proper light source, or the light source it will be displayed in 

Hahnemühle, Canson, Innova, Moab, Awagami makes excellent papers, even Canon ones are good enough, the PM-101, for example. You should look for the sample packs, and then select the one that fits your taste (and budget)

For drawings you may also consider using "canvas" ones, that look more like those used by artists - your printer can use this kind of support as well.


----------



## gbchriste (Feb 24, 2015)

I just got the Pixma Pro-100 as part of a 5DIII/Printer rebate deal. I'm editing on a new(ish) 27" iMac, calibrated with a Spyder 3 puck and ColorEyes software. My initial calibration was setup to a monitor luminance of 100cd/m2 and a gamma of 2.2. I edit and soft proof an image in Lightroom using the target Canon Pro Luster ICC profile. Looks good on the monitor but the print was noticeably darker, even under the best lighting conditions holding the print next to a very large window with diffuse daylight coming in.

So I recalibrated with monitor luminance of 90cd/m2 and gamma of 1.8, re-edited and reproofed, paying special attention to shadow detail. Reprinted. And while the overall brightness of the print was somewhat improved (though still a little darker than I wanted), dark shadow areas that revealed distinct detail in the soft proof were still blocked in the final print.

Color rendition on both was close to spot on when viewing the print under daylight conditions.

I'm about 90% satisfied with the prints I'm getting and feel I'm very close to being able to nail it. But I'd really like to squeeze out that last bit of refinement and just not sure how to get there. I hesitate to turn down the luminance on the monitor anymore. I'm a stickler for getting in-camera exposure correct but at this point with the lower monitor luminance I'm having to crank up exposure in the Lightroom edit by 1/2 to 1 stop and also use aggressive amounts of the black and shadow sliders to retain shadow and black details in the onscreen soft proof, only to have those areas still blocked on the print.

I've carefully checked all elements of the workflow to ensure I'm using the correct profile, print media type, quality setting, printer color management disabled, etc.

Any other suggestions on how to close the gap on that last 10% would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## GaryJ (Feb 24, 2015)

LDS said:


> raggamuffin said:
> 
> 
> > I had a few questions. Firstly the prints I make look nothing like those taken on my camera. The colours are far too dark and I have to manually change brightness and saturations on every image prior to printing. This is taking a lot of trial and error and will be costly inks wise. Any ideas or recommendations to fix this?
> ...


+1...I use Canson paper,I use a Colormunki to calibrate my monitor and profile each paper as well,my prints turn out an almost perfect monitor/print match.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 25, 2015)

Finish your inks and consider an Epson 3880!


----------



## JimKarczewski (Feb 25, 2015)

All I can say is when I was printing, having a 24" HP with a built-in colorometer was priceless. New paper? Just run the analyze on the paper and the printer would generate a profile for it.

You really do need calibration at every step of the game when printing yourself. First, your monitor. I prefer something like the Spyder 4 due to the face that it will measure ambient room light and adjust your monitors based on that light reading.

However, I do believe there are measuring devices out there that will do it all, Monitor and Printer. I may be mistaken.. like I said, I never had to do that because my printer did it for me.

Without being calibrated on your monitor and at off the printer for each paper you print on you are basically printing away all of your money. Ink isn't cheap, especially on the smaller (<14" ) printers. The larger printers (24"+) get a little more reasonable depending on the size cartridges you can use, but without calibration it's a moot point.q


----------



## keithcooper (Feb 25, 2015)

The ink level 'problem' is something I mentioned in my PRO-1 review (mentioned above - thanks)

I find this a general problem with Canon printers which all seem to have very coarse resolution displays of ink levels (only a few steps)

Even my iPF8300 does this trick.

I was printing, not long after I'd got it and made a single large print. Just this one print caused three ink tank levels to drop a whole step. Basic interface design FAIL - do not frighten the user!

The 'replace me' warnings do seem a little eager ;-)

I do feel I must take some issue with suggestion that you use the room lighting measurement 'feature' of monitor calibrators. IMHO, this is largely a feature of more benefit to the sales and marketing literature and should be ignored ;-) Pick a suitably low monitor brightness (I'm using 100 cd/m2 at the moment) and stick with it. If the monitor is too dim, then you are working in too bright a room...

Consistency is what you are after.

There is a page on the Northlight Images site where I've collected all my colour management related articles/reviews that might be of some interest.
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/what_is_colour.html

_Note: Whilst I do some testing work with X-Rite, and will be with them at 'The Photo Show' next month in the UK, I make a point of not selling stuff, and aim for my reviews and articles on the site to be completely brand agnostic._


----------



## LDS (Feb 25, 2015)

keithcooper said:


> There is a page on the Northlight Images site where I've collected all my colour management related articles/reviews that might be of some interest.
> http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/what_is_colour.html



Thank you, very interesting stuff, I'll try to avoid the tar pit risk also  Just links to the late Bruce Fraser's material no longer work, unluckily. It looks creativepro.com removed them.


----------



## keithcooper (Feb 25, 2015)

LDS said:


> keithcooper said:
> 
> 
> > There is a page on the Northlight Images site where I've collected all my colour management related articles/reviews that might be of some interest.
> ...



Thanks - I've fixed the broken links in that section. All were found at Archive.org


----------



## LDS (Feb 25, 2015)

gbchriste said:


> I edit and soft proof an image in Lightroom using the target Canon Pro Luster ICC profile.



Did you turn on also "Simulate ink and paper"? Try also to print from Canon own plug-in for Lightroom - just to check where the issue can be. That plug-in offers also the option to print several "proofs" on the same sheet with different settings, from which you can understand which ones works better.


----------



## gbchriste (Feb 25, 2015)

LDS said:


> gbchriste said:
> 
> 
> > I edit and soft proof an image in Lightroom using the target Canon Pro Luster ICC profile.
> ...



Yes, I am using the Simulate Ink and Paper option.

I tried a little experiment last night, creating 3 different profiles, all using D50 white point and 2.2 gamma, but with 80, 90 and 120 cd/m2 brightness levels. Interestingly, as I changed the active monitor profile between the 3, there was absolutely zero perceived difference in the actual brightness of the monitor. So I'm wondering if the Spyder 3/ColorEyes software combination is actually capable of making an adjustment to the iMac display brightness level or is only shifting color and contrast.

I know it is definitely handling color and contrast because the difference between profiles using D65 vs D50 white point is most noticeable with the D65 being more blue and D50 more yellow. I also can readily see the difference inc contrast between the iMac out of box factory profile and my custom profile.

However at this point I'm not convinced that brightness level is actually being driven by the profile. The on-screen brightness slider in the Mac System Preferences/Displays dialog is always in the center of the adjustment range, regardless of what profile I select. I found that if, no matter what profile I've selected, if I grab the adjustment slider and move it about 1/3 of the way toward the darker end of the slider range, then reedit my image brightness and exposure based on that monitor brightness, then my resulting print is much, much closer to the onscreen view. 

The problem is of course that such an approach is in-precise and not necessarily repeatable. Right now I'm visually aligning the slider with a character of text above the slider but as the monitor ages, a different position may be needed.

Would be interested to hear from other iMac users as to whether you have similar problems with your profiling package actually controlling the monitor brightness or whether you have to guess at making a manual adjustment. 

I've also tried out the Canon Pro Studio and the tiled test prints. Used them to pretty good result on a couple of portrait prints. Based on the tiled print previews I adjusted the brightness up +10 in the Pro Studio settings. That works and I guess for a really critical print - like what might be put in to an exhibit or competition - that would be something to use. But I'd much rather be able to nail the print via the Lightroom Soft Print process rather than have to generate test prints.

I also like some of the Lightroom Print module features that don't exist in Pro Studio, such as the ability to create custom packages or multi-page print jobs, water marking, name plate, file information, et al.


----------



## LDS (Feb 25, 2015)

gbchriste said:


> So I'm wondering if the Spyder 3/ColorEyes software combination is actually capable of making an adjustment to the iMac display brightness level or is only shifting color and contrast.



It looks it depends on software integration with the underlying OS, when monitor settings can't be easily controlled. This may help you: http://www.color-management-guide.com/calibrate-imac-apple-display-mac.html


----------



## jwilbern (Feb 25, 2015)

Here's what works for me and my iMac with the Canon PRO-100. I calibrate the monitor with the Spyder, and in the Lightroom 5 Print Module under Color Management I check Print Adjustment box. I then set Brightness and Contrast to +20. Your settings may be different, but once they are set for a given paper, they should always work.


----------



## gbchriste (Feb 25, 2015)

jwilbern said:


> Here's what works for me and my iMac with the Canon PRO-100. I calibrate the monitor with the Spyder, and in the Lightroom 5 Print Module under Color Management I check Print Adjustment box. I then set Brightness and Contrast to +20. Your settings may be different, but once they are set for a given paper, they should always work.


Thanks!


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 26, 2015)

Without a doubt, Jeff Schewe's THE DIGITAL PRINT, leads to top notch results. It changed my whole understanding (or, should I say, confusion?!?).

Once you get a basic work flow, and you have a reasonably calibrated monitor, things just fall into place. 

At least that is the case with the Epson 3880. I had a Pixma Pro 9000II which was just insane with constantly indicating low ink, plus took MUCH more work soft proofing to get rid of color casts and bring back the contrast. I rarely use the term, "it sucked," but that is how I feel about that Pixma.

Reading Schewe's book and then getting the Epson has me loving, loving, loving the whole printing process on both mat and glossy media.


----------



## ewg963 (Feb 26, 2015)

tgara said:


> Your dark prints are likely due to your monitor being too bright. I had the same issue. Like tolusina said, calibrate your monitor and do it at about 50% brightness level. When you edit or print, remember to set the brightness at 50% (or whatever level you calibrated your monitor on) so you get a more accurate representation of what your print will look like. Also, remember that the monitor is projecting light from behind and through a screen, while a print is relying essentially on reflected ambient light. Those differences in the simple physics of how you view the images will result in differences in how the image is portrayed.
> 
> Here's a good resource describing the problem and some solutions:
> 
> ...


Thank you for the great advice TG...


----------



## LDS (Feb 26, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> At least that is the case with the Epson 3880. I had a Pixma Pro 9000II



Well, you switched from a $400 printer to a $1000+ one, I really hope you got something tangible in exchange - although it is true not always higher price means better quality.

Anyway an A2 printer may be too large and heavy unless you really need it - the Pixma Pro are already expensive, large and heavy enough for most (and maybe less demanding) "non professional" users.

The Pixma Pro reviews, including those on Northlight Images, are positive... anyway when someone asks something just telling him he bough the wrong product and switch is not that helpful, especially if what he bought is not that bad. It's like writing "got bad images with you Canon camera? Get a Nikon or a Sony! It works for me".

You can still buy the wrong product for your needs or expectations - but you really need to assess it is - and not just there's something wrong in the workflow leading to results below what could be really achieved.


----------



## marcel (Feb 26, 2015)

I have a pixma pro 9500 mk l since 2007. Never worked well in Mac or Win until canon published a new version of the plugin in 2012. Now is fantastic! The printer must always be used with the Easy Photo Print Pro plugin in Phtoshop or Canon software: Printer Manages Colors in Photoshop. The problem is that if Photoshop Manages Color plugins are duplicated.This was my problem. Or i save a Tiff from Photoshop and when i open it in Digital Photo Professional i can select the paper profile in the plugin. With new cartridges can print 250 sheets of fine art A3 + . Now i have also an HP Z3200 44".
I work for artists and art gallery in Milano, Italy.


----------



## gbchriste (Feb 26, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> Without a doubt, Jeff Schewe's THE DIGITAL PRINT, leads to top notch results. It changed my whole understanding (or, should I say, confusion?!?).
> 
> Once you get a basic work flow, and you have a reasonably calibrated monitor, things just fall into place.
> 
> ...



Just got this book yesterday and it's sitting open in front of me on my desk right now.

I recalibrated yesterday using the Spyder3 Pro puck and native Spyder3 Pro software in stead of the ColorEyes software. I had ColorEyes because it was the only one that seemed to be able to handle the iMac display brightness on my previous 24" aluminum iMac.

But in the current context on the new machine I found the Spyder software provided a much better profile as far as display brightness goes. I've now got the screen/print brightness issue pretty much under control and overall print tonality and contrast is very, very close to the on-screen soft proof. Especially gratifying to see very subtle shadow details hovering in the range of 8,8,8 (RGB) on screen being preserved and visible in the print. 

I'm now finding though that some of my prints are a bit warmer than my display. Of course that has a lot to do with viewing environment and I don't have a proper daylight balanced viewing station by which to judge the print and my house has a lot of tungsten light in it. 

I'm scouring my way through Digital Print and thinking about upgrading my calibration package to either the Spyder4 or i1 Display Pro.


----------



## LDS (Feb 27, 2015)

marcel said:


> The problem is that if Photoshop Manages Color plugins are duplicated.



If you let Photoshop (or Lightroom or whatever) manage colors, you have to disable color management in the printer driver. Then is a matter of preference if you prefer Adobe ACE (or any other application internal color management engine) or Windows ICM/OSX ColorSync.


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 1, 2015)

LDS said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > At least that is the case with the Epson 3880. I had a Pixma Pro 9000II
> ...



I understand your suggestion here, about sticking to a brand or model when somebody asks a question about using a particular device. My answer is sincere, and I believe it contributes to the conversation. I chimed in a bit late, after many other had addressed the specific printer. In other words, the question had been answered specifically quite well, and I was joining the conversation by sharing my experience.

First, the OP has been having problems for a year with his printer. I know the frustration of spending on ink and getting no better results, and then spending more on ink. And though I switched from a "$400" printer to one that cost me $825 after rebates, still, $400 is a high price for a printer that took so much work to massage a decent print out of, and then guzzled ink at an insane rate. (But, in fact, my Pixma came as a bundle three years ago with a 60D, effectively free after the rebates. Canon made money from my ink purchases!)

I shouldn't have to point out that the OP is not the only person reading a thread. Others have the same questions, including many who are trying to decide on a printer. So, I'm being helpful to those who are searching for info on various printers.

When it comes to printers, we aren't "trapped" in a brand by a bag full of lenses and flashes. It is MUCH easier to finish up a set of inks and move on, either to another of the same brand or a different brand. Sticking with a printer that isn't performing becomes very expensive because it consumes ink.

I'm fully committed to Canon for capturing images. And I use Canon's DPP to cull my RAW's. And I have a Canon scanner. When it comes to printers, friends who contribute work to the local fine arts club and a nationally respected university museum, and who also do well in state print contests happen to prefer Epson, which is why I was willing to invest in one.

Furthermore, the Epson I use, the 3880, costs significantly less per print because of the lower per-ml priced, higher capacity ink cartridges.

I've discovered the joy of printing, thanks to this printer, the help of friends, the Schewe book I mentioned, and a lot of good websites, including Keith Cooper's.

Does this help the OP tonight? Doubtful. But he/she is not stuck with a brand, and if results don't get better, there are other options than giving up on printing altogether.


----------



## LDS (Mar 2, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> I understand your suggestion here, about sticking to a brand or model when somebody asks a question about using a particular device.



What I meant is trying to understand first if there is something wrong in the use of a given device, and help to achieve the best results. Then, and only then, if those results are not yet up to someone expectations, suggest which other devices could lead to better ones.

Because if there are some mistakes in the process, no amount of money you can throw at the problem usually solve it - if not maybe by pure chance. But without the right understanding, it can surface again with any little change in the process, and again if the solution is unknown, it can't be solved.



YuengLinger said:


> First, the OP has been having problems for a year with his printer. I know the frustration of spending on ink and getting no better results, and then spending more on ink.



Yeah, I know too. I believe your suggestion about "Jeff Schewe's THE DIGITAL PRINT" was very important, because you lead to something that can tell a lot about the printing process regardless of the printer you're using. 

Sure, following that book won't turn a consumer printer into an high-end one, yet you'll understand why, and you'll be able to exploit fully whatever your budget permits, and not just waste money on a more expensive model and still get subpar results because you really didn't grap the required technique to obtain good results.

Otherwise, if someone says "my camera always give too dark images", do you tell him to check exposure, or you suggest to change camera? 



YuengLinger said:


> I shouldn't have to point out that the OP is not the only person reading a thread. Others have the same questions, including many who are trying to decide on a printer. So, I'm being helpful to those who are searching for info on various printers.



Yes, but this way it could be a little misleading. If we were to perform a comparison between the Pro-1 and the 3880 we should ensure that both are properly used and deliver the best results. I'm sure that whatever printer I use, and whatever printer Keith Cooper use, his prints will be far better than mine  Would you suggest someone else what printer to use using such kind of comparisons? Does the 3880 always prints better than the Pro-1? Maybe, but it needs to be a fair comparison.



YuengLinger said:


> When it comes to printers, we aren't "trapped" in a brand by a bag full of lenses and flashes. It is MUCH easier to finish up a set of inks and move on, either to another of the same brand or a different brand. Sticking with a printer that isn't performing becomes very expensive because it consumes ink.



Sure, but like cameras, the best device is not the latest and more expensive, but the one you know better and can exploit fully. As I said, it could be true you got the wrong device for the expected result, and just need another. But unless you are sure you're using it the correct way to achieve the best results, and still it's not what you wish, you just risk an endless chase of "the best one" wasting money and money because none will give you what you want, if there is some basic failure in the process. Good for sellers, not so good for your pocket and very frustrating - while maybe buying a $35 book - as you suggested - and/or reading Cooper's site could be the real solution. Then feel free to jump from printer to printer until you're fully satisifed with the results - you'll know how to get there.

I'm not trying to defend the Pro-1 - I was just pointing out it's after all a good printer, and maybe the reported issues were not in the printer itself, but maybe in some other steps. Everybody had its issues with one brand or another, and his own preferred ones. Yet, I learnt there's more value in discussing issues regardless of a given brand, than simply saying "oh yes, I used X too, but it was crap and now I'm very happy with Y" - unless you can give a factual proof that X was really crap.


----------

