[Chaos_Realm]

Wasn't sure if I should put this in beginers section or here, but since its about printing I figured here would do.

So I am a novice when it comes to printing photos. Yes I know I have shot near to 8000 photos and not 1 has been printed yet. Shame on me !
I have researched printers and decided/purchased a canon pixma iP4950. Bought myself a couple packs of photo paper, (Canon matte photo paper, Kodak Ultra Premium Photo Paper - studio gloss and Kodak Ultra Premium Photo Paper - high gloss). If its relevant I have an Asus VH242H monitor and a Radeon 5800 series Graphics card, running Windows 7. Software I am using is Adobe Lightroom 3.2 and Canon Easy photo print ex (came with the printer)
Now I've come to printing and hit a hurdle. I can't get the colours/shade the same as the screen.

I have no idea where to start except for 300dpi setting the paper to glossy or matte etc, print quality to Max.
From what I have read apparently there is ICC Colour Profiles that are required for each type of paper I use. The Canon paper is in there pre-installed with the printer. I feel like I need to do a degree in printing just to get it right!!

Any help will be much appreciated

[bluespearbone]

Screen calibration is the first task. If that is out you have no visible base to match with output from the printer.
Got myself a SpyderExpress some years ago - not too expensive.

[Chaos_Realm]

Hmm that's annoying. More stuff to buy! I thought it would have been easier to calibrated monitors a certain way and you could just download the profile and the printer could print accordingly.

So whats all this waffle i've been reading on ICC profiles?

[cats_five]

The Canon is an excellent choice. Each ink is in a separate cartridge which saves waste compared to printers with tri-colour cartridges, the only drawback being no grey inks - see below. Bizarelly their top-end inkjet multifunctionals have a grey ink as well, so if you haven't brought your printer yet and you want to try B&W printing you might want to reconsider.

To get accurate prints you need both the screen and an ICC profile for the paper / printer combination so they both have an interpretation of 'red' or 'orrangy-red with a hint of green' that we will see (as far as possible) as the same colour. Since screens are additive colour mixing and printers are subtractive that's quite a tall order. If your screen is a low-end TN panel you might find you are needing an upgrade there as well, to one with an IPS panel. The colours that TN panels are limited, IPS panels can display a wider range of colours.

It's relatively easy to calibrate a screen with a Spyder or similar, but you won't find downloadable ICC profiles for your printer - they are around for the Canon Pro printers, but those are far more expensive and complicated printers. However there are places that will produce them for you - you follow the instructions for producing a print, send it off and they email back the ICC profile.

The advice I was given many years ago about printing which I think still holds is as follows:
1) use OEM ink
2) pick a paper and stick to it until you are getting that one right most of the time.
3) then try another paper.

I would suggest you stick to the Canon paper for now - as you say it's ICC profile is already installed. You can't download specific profiles for a lot of papers, so you are either going to have to use a generic one, or get one made, or buy a calibration device that can do paper as well. However, with my Canon MP620 I found that I got great prints - far better than I expected - on Ilford Gallerie Smooth Pearl - and I'd expect the same of your printer.

Black and white printing is the hardest. Since your printer just has black ink, and blue, yellow and cyan, it is printing tiny dots of colour which in theory will look like grey ink at a distance. However colour casts are horribly easy to end up with, and you can also get metamerism - different colour casts depending on the light you view the print in. Years ago I got an HP 8450 that has more inks, unfortunatly in three tri-colour cartridges. One of those extra cartridges contains three shades of grey, and if I printed using just black and grey inks I got beautifully neutral prints that were pretty much neutral regardless of the light. With that printer I only every used the Ilford paper, and as it happens it was one of the very few consumer-grade printers that Ilford had downloadable ICC profiles available for.

You also touch on sizing the image. Yes, I use 300dpi, and after straightening and cropping the image I resize it so that at 300dpi it fits into my paper. Actually it's slightly smaller, depending on it's aspect ratio there will be a tiny white along the top and bottom and wider ones down the sides, or vice versa. Photoshop is very good at the resizing, the point is to make sure resizing is done once only. If I simply fiddle with the picture and send it to the printer and say 'fit paper', the printer software will make it fit with me not seeing the results until I've made a print. I found a discussion over on the Luminous Landscape forums about why 300dpi, and it's to do with how the Canon drivers work but (surprise!) opinion was divided about how much difference it makes these days.

[Chaos_Realm]

Each ink is in a separate cartridge which saves waste compared to printers

Yeh I am well aware of this aspect and it was a criteria I had when looking at printers.

haven't brought your printer yet and you want to try B&W printing you might want to reconsider

This was not something i considered, but thankfully I don't do too much black and white, plus I am guessing this would most likely increase the price which I was already stretching for this one.

If your screen is a low-end TN panel you might find you are needing an upgrade there as well, to one with an IPS panel. The colours that TN panels are limited, IPS panels can display a wider range of colours.

Is it really that much different? to the point of requiring an upgrade? I see that ISP cover about 90 odd% of adobeAGB's colour range. But WOWZAS the equivalent real estate for ISP (dell Ultrasharp U2410) is $700, Compared to a <1/3 of that for a TN panel :O

I would suggest you stick to the Canon paper for now

Well after I get through the respective kodak versions High gloss and studio gloss I just purchased.

OK so I'm going to come back to your post after I have digested/researched and had a fiddle with the printer. Because you have provided information overload! (yes I have been researching each point you bring up as I have only ever had a colour Laser for my studies and this is all a foreign language to me)

But thanks, It's all helping me immensely.

[Chaos_Realm]

But WOWZAS the equivalent real estate for ISP (dell Ultrasharp U2410) is $700, Compared to a <1/3 of that for a TN panel :O

ok I stand corrected. That could just be dell. Asus 23" PA238Q goes for about $400 AUD with 98%adobe RGB VS dells 96%. All is not lost, but its still a bit of a wait to save that much! + spyderexpress3 for another $120

[bluespearbone]

Is it really that much different? to the point of requiring an upgrade? I see that ISP cover about 90 odd%

Asus 23" PA238Q goes for about $400 AUD with 98%adobe

+ spyderexpress3 for another $120

So get the screen calibaration first, that will make the biggest difference on what you already have (unless you are of the great fortune to have correctly calibrated screen that never fluctuates).

[Ron Kruger]

I don't understand why more Pentax photographers don't use PCU4 for their basic RAW editing. It is designed specifically for that purpose and is free.

[Chaos_Realm]

I don't understand why more Pentax photographers don't use PCU4 for their basic RAW editing. It is designed specifically for that purpose and is free.

I might be miss understanding where your going with this but I am not having trouble with the basic raw editing, and from what I understand if the monitor colour doesn't match that of the printer it wouldn't matter what program I was using.

If its a statement about the software I use, then I will explain. Yes I understand that PCU4 is quite decent for raw processing (at least from my very brief time using it), but I like the library management, and the workflow of Adobe LR. Sure it may be a little overkill for my use but I like it.

[mysticcowboy]

You will probably want a better monitor eventually. And you can spend quite a while learning the ins-and-outs of printing in the mean time. Unfortunately, you will need a calibration device, Spyder or ColorMunki or such. I really want to emphasize cats_five's recommendation to start with one paper first. Learn it thoroughly and you will get more consistent prints.

One other point. Start with small prints. Cut your paper into smaller pieces if you bought large. You'll find that printing eats ink faster than you ever imagined. I also do that with test prints. I'll make a 4x6 before printing a final at a larger size. Nothing like printing a 13x19 inch print to discover that the color is off.

[Schraubstock]

Wasn't sure if I should put this in beginers section or here, but since its about printing I figured here would do.

So I am a novice when it comes to printing photos. Yes I know I have shot near to 8000 photos and not 1 has been printed yet. Shame on me !
I have researched printers and decided/purchased a canon pixma iP4950. Bought myself a couple packs of photo paper, (Canon matte photo paper, Kodak Ultra Premium Photo Paper - studio gloss and Kodak Ultra Premium Photo Paper - high gloss). If its relevant I have an Asus VH242H monitor and a Radeon 5800 series Graphics card, running Windows 7. Software I am using is Adobe Lightroom 3.2 and Canon Easy photo print ex (came with the printer)
Now I've come to printing and hit a hurdle. I can't get the colours/shade the same as the screen.

I have no idea where to start except for 300dpi setting the paper to glossy or matte etc, print quality to Max.
From what I have read apparently there is ICC Colour Profiles that are required for each type of paper I use. The Canon paper is in there pre-installed with the printer. I feel like I need to do a degree in printing just to get it right!!

Any help will be much appreciated

Hi
You are now entering an activity which is probably the most difficult to master. I have printed fine art giclée for many years now and believe me when I tell you there is no way to print accurately without profiling your monitor, paper and inks. And for that you do need equipment ! If you try to get results by trial and error you will find it will cost you more money on wasted inks and paper than buying a good basic calibration system.

The problem is you have two different systems generating colour in a different way. Your printer uses Subtractive Color while your monitor uses is a Additive Color system. So now you need a profile so that these to systems "sing from the same song book" . These two systems generate colour in different ways and the correct information has to be send to the printer which only a profile can do accurately.

Then there is another variable to be considered. The software which actually prints your image can throw a spanner into the works as well. For example, I find (I am not the only one) when I print directly out of Photoshop the result is always, despite applying the correct printer profile, slightly off. Not by much but off just the same. In general it darkens the colours overall. So I print everything out of CorelDraw. I have purchased CorelDraw for printing only. (And I know a lot of professionals do). Little while ago I visited a printer trade show in Taiwan and on the Epson stand was a wide format printer running to display its virtues, guess what the image was sent to the printer via CorelDraw.

I had people tell me, I don't need all this calibration stuff, I fiddled around with it until I got printed pictures that look pretty good to me. Then watch their jaws drop when they see what comes off their file on my printer.

I have tested the ColorMunki Pro system and find it absolutely accurate and it is easy to work with. Buy it you will not be disappointed and it will save you a lot of money. I am not kidding.

The paper I use for most of what I print is "Ilford Smooth Pearl". Colour reproduction is superb and it is very forgiving as far as handling is concerned. (No finger marks) It also displays little or no chroming effect (metallic reflection visible when light falls in an angle on heavily inked areas) and also does not display the dreaded metamerism effect. (Googl for it). For landscapes I like to use "Hahnemühle" 100% cotton rag, it is a museum quality archival rag specifically designed for ink jet printing. But it is bloody expensive and you would not dare printing on it without a profile.

Greetings

[cats_five]

So that's two votes for Ilford Smooth Pearl paper!

ILFORD GALERIE

[lamented bovine]

Hi
You are now entering an activity which is probably the most difficult to master.
Greetings

I agree. Although I do not see myself as a pro. I use Ilford Smooth Pearl, Kodak Prem Ultra High Gloss, Hahnemühle rag. The printers I use Epson R800, Epson 4000
and Encad Chroma 24. I do not use oem inks, I have a third party who supplies my inks ( I have had no issues yet, keeping in mind my printers are old now, compared to
the new ones). I use a colormuki system to pofile monitor and printers. Print targets and arrive at a icc profile for a paticular paper. The colormunki then snaps the icc profile to your software if compatible.
I use photoshop for prints and to me they are correct ( I have not tried Coral, however from above advice I may give it a go). My work flow is, edit in sagelight, minor corrections in photoshop-print. I have photoshop setup to my moniter profile ( done by colormunki) US uncoated v2, gray 2.2, RGB off, cmyk preserve, gray preserve, ask for all other.
Print is controlled by photoshop, you can view wether or not your print is out of gamut and choose perceptual ect:, and the printers are set to no color profile.
Just throw a spanner in the works, I also profiled my cameras as well, using Color Checker Passport combined with Xrite target. The Xrite target is not a print it is a painted color correct painted ICC (international color consortium) target.
Getting your prints from what you see on screen is a world of hurt if you dont profile your system correctly from camera to print. I think the cost of a good profiling system will be cheaper then lots and headaches, wasted paper and ink.
And yes we did it by hand painting in the good old days of film in the wet lab.
I hope I have been helpfull, There are other people on the site who have far more knowledge than myself.
Cheers
Shane

[Schraubstock]

I think the cost of a good profiling system will be cheaper then lots and headaches, wasted paper and ink.

Hi
You are spot on here and all your other observations. I think the main reason why people shy away from buying a profiling system and think they can do without is because they don't fully understand the principal of subtractive and additive colour and how difficult it is to make these two different systems work in harmony.

For A3 + (which I print most of these days for framing) I run an EPSON R2880 with resetting chips and MIS inks which I import in bulk from USA. I find MIS inks better quality then EPSON inks and of course, oh, so much cheaper. EPSON is a good printer but it is an even better ink wasting device. I have cut the tubing which lead into the internal wast ink pads extended them and attached at the end a plastic bottle. The amount if ink that goes into this bottle is breath taking. I also have software to reset the ink waste counter so I don't have to spent $200.00 for EPSON to reset it and replace the pads. Without all this I would not be able to do the amount of printing I currently do. (I print mainly for other people)

Getting your prints from what you see on screen is a world of hurt if you don't profile your system correctly

And of course you need a half decent monitor capable of calibrating. But luckily they are not so expensive anymore these days. But let it be said, the cost of a half decent monitor and colour profiling system is cheap compared to what one can/will spent on inks and paper. (Put an application for a second mortgage in now. )

Shane, Have you tried metallic paper, if not give it a go. It is not suitable for general motives but for technical photography such as cars, machinery and even architecture it is something else. I have done a promotional folder for a car company showcasing their cars and printed this on metallic paper and it looked a million dollars, even if I say so myself.

Greetings

[lamented bovine]

Shane, Have you tried metallic paper, if not give it a go. It is not suitable for general motives but for technical photography such as cars, machinery and even architecture it is something else. I have done a promotional folder for a car company showcasing their cars and printed this on metallic paper and it looked a million dollars, even if I say so myself.

I have done some reading up on that paper, although I dont think I have a use for it yet. I am about to have a crack at A3 Ilford Galerie Gold Fibre Silk, not sure
if the Ilford paper is similar to metallic. I would prefer to have a screw up on cheaper paper if you get my drift.

Cheers
Shane