Need help with printing images from i9100

[discrhythmia]

I have posted a similar question before but I think I need to be a little more specific this time. First off, a big THANK YOU to everyone who takes the time to read and answer my "newbie" posts. Every little bit helps and I have always learned something from each - but for now I want to keep things simple. No offense to the Guru's but I was just a little overwhelmed. I don't care about what Epson printers can do and I don't want to think about comparing sRGB and aRGB. If you have a i9100 and experience with PS Elements and can give me some simple cut to the chase tips and advice, you will be my new best friend.

PROBLEM - I have a spyder calibrated LCD monitor and shooting with 10D with PS Elements. Printing with the i9100 on Canon pro paper. All my prints seem to have the color washed out of them, especially skin tones. Could someone help out with how to "attempt" to properly set up everything so my prints match what I see on my screen. I understand I need to change dpi settings but I'm not sure if I'm doing things the right way. And I'm not a hundred percent sure if I'm using my ICC settings properly.

Looking forward to responses :D

[John_T]

The i9100 is excellent and gives outstanding prints right out of the box. What happens to most people is that they get caught up in details and have a head full over color management from here and everywhere, and think they have to do all sorts of things to get the perfect print when they don't at all. So let's start simple:

There are new versions of the printer driver, Easy-Photo Print, etc. Download and install them.

To find out what the problem is, it is easier to eliminate what it's not. Forget all the ICC and color management blahooey, that's for later.

1. Take your 10D out, set to sRGB, Auto, perhaps on a tripod, with care for focus, in good daylight and take a good shot of something, anything colorful and detailed. Download it to your computer, don't even look at it, and open it in Easy-Photo Print, select photo, paper/size, layout and print it with everything default, auto, no effects, no optimization, nothing, nul, nil zero.

2. Look at the print, not compared to anything. Is it good? If it was good in the camera, it should be good in the print because you nor any processing software touched it. If it's good, you know camera and printer are good. If not, you have only those two to deal with before looking further.

3. Just on principle, recalibrate and profile your monitor meticulously. Don't think about it, mess with it, just straight by the book.

4. Now open the pic in PS and compare the print to the screen. Unless you have a very good LCD, Spyder won't work miracles so don't expect an exact match in any case.

5. Now print it in PS absolutely straight. Don't correct it, no profiles. In the PS print diolog set Print Space to Printer Color Management. In the i9100 printer dialog set the paper to the same paper as the first print and otherwise all settings the same in as in the first print.

6. Is the second print the same as the first print? If so, you know that before you messed up in PS either because of your monitor, your graphic card or because of print dialog settings.

So first do this and then come back. Problems are almost always due to something simple and it is a waste of time and frustration chasing ghosts before you know whether the basics are good.

[discrhythmia]

Thanx John! Will hopefully get to try your tips later today and will get back to you.

[John_T]

After thought > make sure your calibration is to a color temp of 6500 degrees Kelvin and gamma 2.2! That's the usual for photo work.

[discrhythmia]

John,
Tried the print from Easy-PhotoPrint - Without comparing to anything - Color seems washed out.

[John_T]

OoooK. I try not to make any assumptions, but that should have eliminated a bundle, and if your lens and sensor are clean and free of fine dust and vapor deposits, and you know your photo was good and unadulterated, we can focus on the printer.

Lift the hood on the printer and check:

- is the paper thickness lever set to paper and not envelopes/heavy card?

- are all the ink tanks in the proper slot?

- there is no packing material, mice or lizards in there.

Go Start > Printers and Faxes > right click Canon i9100 and select Printing Preferences.

- select each tab, Main through Effects and at the bottom click the Defaults button then Apply for every tab.

- on the Profiles tab select Default Settings

- on the Maintenance tab click the Start Status Monitor and check for anything strange in the Canon i9100 - USBXXX window that pops up

- back in Preferences click Quiet mode and set to default

- click Custom Settings and set to Default (if you live in a high humidity environment or use some papers you might want to play with this some other time)

- click Nozzle check and run it, see what comes out

- click Print Head Alignment and run it, see what comes out

- on principle click Cleaning and/or Deep Cleaning

- run Nozzle check again

- OK out of Preferences

Print the same photo again with Easy PhotoPrint

- if you are using Photo Paper Pro, LET THE PRINT SET/DRY AT LEAST AN HOUR, PREFERABLY 24 HOURS BEFORE YOU JUDGE IT.

- better? the same?

At this point you should be seeing a default print, which would be your departure point for seasoning to taste.

Print the photo again using Main > Print Quality > Custom > Set > 1 Fine, Effects tab > check Vivid Photo

Print again and again each time adding printer driver "enhancements" until you get something that approaches your tastes/expectations.

- if you are using Photo Paper Pro, LET THE PRINT SET/DRY AT LEAST AN HOUR, PREFERABLY 24 HOURS BEFORE YOU JUDGE IT.


Once you have found this point, you will know what you have to do in PS instead of in the printer driver to get what you are striving for, PROVIDED YOUR LCD PROVIDES SUFFICIENT COLOR ACCURACY AND LUMINANCE TO EDIT FROM. I have to say that because most DON"T.

So now where are we?

[John_T]

I might mention here for the benefit of you and our beloved lurkers, the reason I have taken the above route is to cut the monitor, graphic card and editing software out of the picture.

The monitor and graphic card will not directly affect the print in any way, but may misslead you to make changes to your photo that are not valid due to unpredictable color shifts, inaccurate composition and other abberations that lesser quality monitors and graphic cards are prone to, even if calibrated and profiled.

Most monitors, graphic cards and other computer components are made for non-critical work or play at home or office where price is more important than quality. Who cares if Excel's orTomb Raider's colors are spot on? Gimme FPS!!!

[discrhythmia]

John,

Finally had some time to try your latest recommendations. - Minimal improvement -

I Tried printing an image to compare with an image that I had printed from a Fuji frontier lab that matched my monitor image. When I compare the two it just seems that my Canon images are lacking the brightness/vibrance and warm tones I was expecting.

What next?

[maderito]

Something's odd here! Maybe it's time to look at one of your shots so we can see what you're trying to print. Can you post an example?

[msnow]

I skimmed through the posts quickly so forgive me if this has already been mentioned but you should use the printer profile that came with your printer. Under the "Color Management" tab of your driver there should be a place to add a "Color Profile". Add the one that came on the CD from your printer or download it from their site.

As was stated previously, don't let photoshop manage your color printing, leave that for the printer as described above.

[John_T]

In the i9100 driver that would be Main tab > Color Adjustment > Auto

[discrhythmia]

John,
I Left color adjustment on auto and and with vivid photo on I had minimal improvement. I tried adjusting the colors manually and again only gained minimal improvement.

I'll try posting an image so you can see what I'm trying to print.

[discrhythmia]

Hey everyone, I figured out how to post the image so here we go. My Canon just isn't reproducing the vibrant/warm skin tones. Yes this image has been edited but only with regards to blurring the background. I didn't touch the color on this version of the image.

Thanx again
Chad

http://www.members.shaw.ca/mcdeering/TOCFrame_files/image001.jpg

[John_T]

First off, I am viewing on two Sony GDM-F520 21" professional monitors connected to a Matrox Parhelia 256 graphic card, calibrated with ColorVision SpyderPro with OptiCal. I have little reason to doubt what I am seeing.

On your image I find the lighting hard, with the highlights on forehead, nose, cheek, chin and shoulder blown out. The dress and roses are blown out/washed out. Some features and tones look a bit plastic, though makeup in certain light can do that. Her hair is bleached and recolored in streaks which under certain light will look unnatural. All in all I can imagine that this image when correctly printed would come out with the attributes you are unsatisfied with.

So now to try it the other way around. Here is an image that is a known quantity to me in that it has not been manipulated, displays correctly and prints perfectly up to A3+ or beyond. Colors are all in natural sunlight and the image has not been sharpened. Please tell me what you see. Here it is only 640x480 for web, but maybe you can try printing it to see what comes out.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/hosting/data//500/20945103_0352.jpg

[John_T]

Actually, to save us a lot of back and forth, PM me your e-mail address and I will e-mail you the PhotoDisc test target (1.2MB), a known and reconized standard, which you can print out and compare to your display, thereby eliminating room for doubt on the source.

[maderito]

I've been following this thread with interest. A few comments:

Yes, the print is not exposed properly. When I view it in Photoshop, use a "proof setup" with the Canon BJC profile, and check the gamut warning (under menu "view") , the areas mentioned by John_T are out of gamut.

The histograms show clipping (all channels) on the right but an improperly set "black point" on the left. Move the left slider to the edge of the histogram (or just do an "auto contrast" - not "auto color").

The images looks very washed out when assigned an sRGB profile and prints as such.

Results were OK but not great with:
-Assign Adobe RGB profile
-Source space = Document: Adobe RGB
-Print space = "Printer Color Management"
-Canon driver set to "auto" for color management.

The results improved by adjusting the contrast with "auto contrast." However, there were still a lot of out of gamut colors, and the print did not match the monitor screen. To my eye, the print looks better than the monitor screen since the latter dramatizes the harsh highlights which are more muted on the print.

I'm using the Canon i950. The print is 600 x 900 pixels. Under image size, I set the resolution to 240 which gave me a print size of 2.5" x 3.75"

[discrhythmia]

I have received the PhotoDisc test target and will hopefully get to compare tonight.

Now here is where things get interesting...........while sitting at the station computer (a generic Dell 2400 with a generic Dell 17in screen) earlier today I was checking the picture that John_T sent me, I scrolled up the screen and low and behold my image that I have been struggling with, when viewed on the station computer, appears to match what I have been printing.

ie: my monitor at home is matching a print I had done on a Fuji Frontier at the lab and the montior at the station (not hooked up to my i9100) is showing my image almost exactly as printed on my i9100 that is hooked up to my computer at home not at the station.

Why would this be?