Overall reddish prints
in [Printers]
|
Prev: HP Laserjet 1012: very annoying "Unsupported Personnality" problem!
Next: Help - looking for reset commands for Canon MP390
From: Markeau on 22 Jun 2005 20:04 "Satoshi" <machocraig(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:d9c1a8$mmp$1(a)reader2.nmix.net... >I am printing outdoor pictures on Canon i950 using Canon Glossy Photo >Paper. On screen, pictures were sharp and great. When printed, >pictures were reddish overall. Black stuff came out purple on >prints. (All pictures were taken with Sony 5 MP digicam.). I >don't see any problem with camera and screen color. > > Using Photoshop, I tried to change the color balance: I changed > color level from red to cyan ( to the level of cyan -60). Printed > pictures were still reddish, though less reddish this time. I am > wondering what is the problem? Should I change magenta ink > cartridge or print head? Need your help. Satoshi For sure you are not double-profiling? There are at least two ways to properly print: - In PS > Print Preview: set Print Space to Printer Color Management. Then in the printer driver, enable ICM. - In PS > Print Preview: set Print Space to use a paper profile, then in the printer driver disable ICM and make sure you use the same paper as the paper profile. However, I think I remember someone posting similar problems with their i950 and so they then got a i9900 which printed fine. BUT, I also remember at least one post about their i9900 prints being off - Canon support determined it was a bad printer and indeed the replacement was fine. So, there could be
From: Burt on 22 Jun 2005 23:22 "measekite" <inkystinky(a)oem.com> wrote in message news:YRmue.2774$Bx6.488(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com... > > > Burt wrote: > >>Satoshi - The two light dye load inks, photo magenta and photo cyan, are >>used up faster than the other inks under normal circumstances when >>printing most photos. I have a Canon i960 and especially with pictures >>that have people with skin tones that are more red than average I either >>adjust the overall intensity to -4 or -6, or I adjust the magenta to a >>minus value that gives the best print. I have seen one post that >>suggested -7 setting for Magenta. Do not use the two higher quality paper >>settings - stay with the glossy photo paper setting as you described. >>Print all pictures in manual color setting. I found that the automatic >>setting came up very red. You may or may not have to adjust the intensity >>or magenta as described above. I use photoshop elements 2 and calibrated >>my monitor with the adobe gamma program. When I first bought the printer >>I played with various settings and papers to get the best color balance to >>my eye. When I started using non-OEM inks I redid my tests and found that >>the test prints were comparable to the OEM inks with every combination of >>settings and papers. > > I guess the word comparable does not mean nearly exact. Nearly exact is an oxymoron. Exact is exact. To state that they are exactly the same would have required evaluation with extremely sophisticated equipment. I use the word comparable because to the naked eye (I can't wait to see how Measekite twists this phrase) the photos I have printed with OEM and with MIS inks both look the same, absent close scientific evaluation. One or another of the areas may look very slightly more or less saturated or very slightly more or less yellow, magenta, or cyan, but the key word here is that the differences are so slight as to beg a closer evaluation. I am not concerned if the OEM and MIS inks are or are not EXACTLY the same. Both make extremely pleasing prints that reflect, as well as can be expected without sophisticated customizing of the color profiles of monitor, printer, camera, and paper/ink combinations, the colors of the original scenes. It is apparent that Canon's profiles need a little adjustment with some of their printers, but, in their "wisdom" they made a manual setting with adjustment capability. For those of us who were involved with color photography before the era of point and shoot automatic cameras and the overwhelming use of Kodak 100, 200, or 400 negative film, we are acutely aware of the leaning of certain films to the blue spectrum, others with oversaturated colors, etc. The original 10 ASA Kodachrome slide material produced beautiful, albeit oversaturated color slides. The first Ektachrome 25 ASA slide material had a not so subtle shift to blues. We bought Pro packs of color negative film (20 rolls, as I recall) and shot test prints of a known color chart to zero in on that particular batch of film's characteristics before using it in the field. The other 19 rolls were then stored in the refrigerator until used as there could be color shifts with less-than-ideal storage conditions. I mention all of this to reflect on Measekite's criticism that I did not say the ink color matches were EXACT. Nothing in photograpy is EXACT, and everything has to be tested and calibrated, even the most highly rated professional negative film. Users of any ink, even OEM inks, must know that different batches will almost never be EXACT, but they will, hopefully, be pretty damned close. In other words, close enough that there is no difference to the naked eye. I think this is where I started. Can we stop beating this one to death? > >> I presently use Costco Kirkland glossy photo paper with an :-( >> aftermarket :-( ink and the settings I described above. Someone else >> answered your post with the suggestion that you may have more than one >> software program trying to adjust your colors. If the settings I >> suggested don't help[ then that may be your problem. >> >>"Satoshi" <machocraig(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>news:d9c1a8$mmp$1(a)reader2.nmix.net... >> >>>I am printing outdoor pictures on Canon i950 using Canon Glossy Photo >>>Paper. On screen, pictures were sharp and great. When printed, pictures >>>were reddish overall. Black stuff came out purple on prints. (All >>>pictures were taken with Sony 5 MP digicam.). I don't see any problem >>>with camera and screen color. >>> >>>Using Photoshop, I tried to change the color balance: I changed color >>>level from red to cyan ( to the level of cyan -60). Printed pictures >>>were still reddish, though less reddish this time. I am wondering what >>>is the problem? Should I change magenta ink cartridge or print head? >>>Need your help. Satoshi >>> >>> >> >> >>
From: zakezuke on 23 Jun 2005 00:12 > To state that they are exactly the same would have required evaluation with extremely > sophisticated equipment. Or a getto solution would be using a semi decent flat bed scanner calibrated with a a decent color wheel or better still a color chart. Sure it's not exact, esp taking into account it's harder to replace the bulb with one you know is neutral than the olden days, but with enough tweeking you can have a passable tool for color calibration and something resembling quantitative color analysis. May not be perfect, but at least a valuable tool to keep things consistant.
From: Frank on 23 Jun 2005 00:18 Burt wrote: Nearly exact is an oxymoron. Exact is exact... ....Can we stop beating this one to death? I think you've just hammered the death knell. :-) Frank
From: Burt on 23 Jun 2005 01:22
Actually, Zake, for me it is sufficient to "eyeball" it. As long as I like the print I am a happy camper. I am doing it solely for my own enjoyment. That is why the term "exact" becomes an abstract concept for my printing needs. During my professional career I dealt in producing results to fractions of millimeters. Even with that kind of precision I would be reluctant to say the work was EXACT! As we all know, even the most precise measuring device is only accurate to a prestated value + or _. When I comes to color values with inkjet printers, you hit it on the head. Consistancy is something to strive for, as perfection is elusive. "zakezuke" <zakezuke_us(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1119499940.034132.145360(a)g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> To state that they are exactly the same would have required evaluation >> with extremely >> sophisticated equipment. > > Or a getto solution would be using a semi decent flat bed scanner > calibrated with a a decent color wheel or better still a color chart. > Sure it's not exact, esp taking into account it's harder to replace the > bulb with one you know is neutral than the olden days, but with enough > tweeking you can have a passable tool for color calibration and > something resembling quantitative color analysis. May not be perfect, > but at least a valuable tool to keep things consistant. > |