Problems printing on SATIN finish paper

[quickben]

I shoot RAW (Adobe RGB), I process in PSCS (maintaining colourspace throughout), I try to print on Canon's SG-101 semi-gloss paper on my i850 using the recomended settings and I still get blotchy-ness in the dark areas of the photo. This only happens on satin type paper (I've tried Kodak Ultima satin and Ilford Classic Pearl, same results). I print the same photo on PR-101 and it comes out perfect. I'd like to be able to use the SG-101 paper, as I like the texture. Any advice ? Or do I need to get a i9950 ?

Cheers

Gary.

[barryburgard]

I had problems when I did not use the same paper brand as my printer brand. It seems that the printer ink and paper are matched for good results. When you have a mismatch, the results are more unpredictable. Sorry 'bout that! Good luck.

Barry

[just pictures]

I print satin finish paper from Red River Paper on my canon I9900 with no problems. It may be more trouble to get than you want to deal with,but they sell some really good papers and they all print as good or better than canon paper. www.redriverpaper.com.

[J Rabin]

QuickBen:
I use that Canon Semi-Gloss on the Canon i960. Wicked good results. Are you printing with preview and then selecting the ICC profile for the Canon Photo Paper Plus Glossy? Also, shutting off all other color mgt? When I use Ilford Pearl finish, I use the Canon Photo Paper Pro ICC profile, but use the SP profile with Canon's own. Get nice results with each. Did you e-mail Canon tech support? Maybe it's a printer problem or you just need updated ICC profiles installed? Best of luck.

[ejwebb]

I have noticed the same thing with the Ilford Classic Pearl and my Canon 9100. However, it is really only noticable in the shadow areas when the photos are viewed from a few inches away. At normal viewing distance you can't tell. I don't see it in the really dark ares - only those that are somewhat dark - has to do with the dithering. I don't think it is a flaw - just the way the paper reacts to the ink in these areas.

I use the printers best quality and Glossy Photo Paper settings with ICM on to get the best monitor match. You might try adjusting the paper selection or quality settings to see if you get better results. I have not tested like this to the extent that I probably should since it doesn't bother me much but maybe one of the settings puts less ink on the paper and would help with this. It could affect the overall saturation, though.

Despite this issue, Classic Pearl is still my favorite paper for people prints - the texture is awesome and it looks great from a normal viewing distance.

[Beeclose]

Hi, I asked a few days ago if anyone could help with lines across gallery paper printed with iP3000 canon, I went to Canon web site and their support section advised on how to fix problem, I have just run off 2( Raw ) prints and they are super,it all came down to the correct paper settings in the print file setup

[ejwebb]

So what was the solution? When you say gallery paper are you referring to the Ilford line?

[Beeclose]

Hi.click on print from the drop down file menu.go to copies & pages,and go to quality &media.then select Matt Photo Paper, it fixed my problem maybe it will help You. EW

[Longwatcher]

Not sure completely applies as I have s9000 and i9900, but for Kodak and Ilford which have a different surface coating then Canon paper; slow the printer down slightly.
Don't remember where it was in the preferences list, but there is a fast versus quality slider bar in the software, move it over to slower, higher quality. Even at its slowest it will still be faster then an Epson of the same generation).

Just doing this will get rid of almost all blotchiness with these papers.

The advantage to these papers is they have a coating which does a better job of protecting the ink in the paper from ozone and other atmospheric contamination.

The disadvantage is because of this coating the ink takes a bit longer to dry, so you can occasionally end up with blotches if you don't slow the printer down.

Also note, If you live in a high humidity area, you may also have some additional problems because the higher humidity will cause the pores in the paper to be smaller thus preventing it from absorbing the ink as fast. In this case I recommend a dehumidifier near the printer and stored paper.

Just my experience with the Canon BCI-6 OEM ink set on my printers.

[ejwebb]

Thanks, both. I have noticed the blotchiness but only in certain mid-tone areas - the shadows of the face, for example. It is less of an issue with the Classic gloss than it is with the pearl but either way not that big a deal. It's not dissimilar to what I see using Canon's Photo Paper Pro.

My bigger problem is with banding, primarily in the larger areas like the sky. I print on the Ilford papers using the Glossy Photo Film (or something like that - recommmended setting by Ilford) and the Fine quality setting with Dithering - using ICM on for now since the Ilford profile does not work well for me. I have print profiling software ordered to help develop a custom profile but I am still concerned about the banding since the profiling will not correct that issue.

While I think the banding is there with the Canon Photo Paper Pro, it is barely even noticable with the naked eye - but with the Ilford it is pretty obvious if you get up close. I did notice that the Ilford settings actually recommend High quality rather than the Fine/Dithering that I am using - I need to reprint with that setting tonight and experiment a little more with other paper settings to see if the banding goes away. I do have the printer set on its slowest setting.

Humidity could be an issue - never thought of that one. This is a new phenomena for me since I have had the printer since October of last year and have not noticed this issue until the last few weeks - when the heat and humidity in my area have both increased - especially the upstairs where my equipment is located. Oh, well, I'll get to the bottom of it...

[Longwatcher]

I only get banding when I print in the wrong mode for the paper.