Canon Pixma 9000 Gamut Range ?

I am currently using a Canon Pixma iP4700 printer. I have been having trouble with color matching and have been through all the settings. I recently had a picture of someone in a blue jacket and when printed the jacket came out purple. Well I just tried printing the picture through CS5 and noticed that, in the preview with [Gamut Warning] selected, most of the jacket is grayed out. So I loaded the printer test chart here:{ http://www.digitaldog.​net/tips/ } and found that 80-90% of the 2 color bars at the top were grayed out, out of Gamut.

So my question is, how much better can I expect the Gamut Range of the Pixma 9000 to be ?

I have a NIB Pixma 9000 for sale but am considering keeping it for myself if I knew for sure that it would solve my color problems.

Diver-Down wrote in post #10211631
I am currently using a Canon Pixma iP4700 printer. I have been having trouble with color matching and have been through all the settings. I recently had a picture of someone in a blue jacket and when printed the jacket came out purple. Well I just tried printing the picture through CS5 and noticed that, in the preview with [Gamut Warning] selected, most of the jacket is grayed out. So I loaded the printer test chart here:{ http://www.digitaldog.​net/tips/ } and found that 80-90% of the 2 color bars at the top were grayed out, out of Gamut.

So my question is, how much better can I expect the Gamut Range of the Pixma 9000 to be ?

I have a NIB Pixma 9000 for sale but am considering keeping it for myself if I knew for sure that it would solve my color problems.

Post the picture here and I can check if its still out of gamut for you. However, Paper type plays a huge role in printer color gamut. What paper are you using? Matte papers tend to have larger gamuts.

Sdiver2489 wrote in post #10211801
Post the picture here and I can check if its still out of gamut for you. However, Paper type plays a huge role in printer color gamut. What paper are you using? Matte papers tend to have larger gamuts.

I've been using mostly Canon Glossy II but have also tried RR Polar Gloss and Ilford Smooth pearl which is semi gloss to matt. I just tried the RR and Ilford profiles on the Digital Dog "Printer Test File" and they are slightly better but still allot out of Gamut.

Here is the picture with the blue jacket that always prints purpleish for me..........

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

Here are some screen shots showing the gray "Gamut Warnings" I'm seeing. I realize that these are not fine lines and grayed areas will often print fine but this seems excessive.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

Your monitor is calibrated, yes? If your printing is that mission critical, you can always profile the printer as well...

Yes, monitor is calibrated.
My printing jobs really aren't very critical and I don't do allot of printing but it really pee's me off when I spent the time editing pictures to look the way I want them to, then the print comes out looking totally different.

I have a pro9000, and it is great in terms of the color it can reproduce. I get gamut warnings too, but the colors are very, very close. FYI, there is a new driver for the printer that increases the bit depth when printing. Haven't done any back to back comparisons, but the images look great.

First of all, I get about the same gamut warning as you on the 9000 no matter what paper I use, so it must be a pretty universally hard to print color.

But secondly...maybe I have a different definition of purple...but that jacket is not what I would call blue. Maybe a blue-ish purple...but its pretty darn purple as is. I guess I would call it a blue-tinted lavender...but again...we all have different definitions of purple/blue.

Sdiver2489 wrote in post #10212286
First of all, I get about the same gamut warning as you on the 9000 no matter what paper I use, so it must be a pretty universally hard to print color.

But secondly...maybe I have a different definition of purple...but that jacket is not what I would call blue. Maybe a blue-ish purple...but its pretty darn purple as is. I guess I would call it a blue-tinted lavender...but again...we all have different definitions of purple/blue.

Well, now I really don't know what to do. Did you try the Digital Dog File ?

I agree, the jacket isn't really a true blue in the picture but my prints have very little blue in them. Below is the picture above that I adjusted to look like my prints, this is pretty close to what I get.............

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

Diver-Down wrote in post #10211943
I've been using mostly Canon Glossy II but have also tried RR Polar Gloss and Ilford Smooth pearl which is semi gloss to matt. I just tried the RR and Ilford profiles on the Digital Dog "Printer Test File" and they are slightly better but still allot out of Gamut.

Here is the picture with the blue jacket that always prints purpleish for me..........

I wouldn't have used the DigitalDog test image unless you were working completely in the Colormatch RGB color space. Even Andrew Rodney purports to be using ProPhoto RGB lately. There are many better print test images available tagged in sRGB and Adobe RGB.

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk …le_pages/test_i​mages.html

And have you tried printing in both Perceptual rendering intent AND Relative intent?

Diver-Down wrote in post #10211631
...So my question is, how much better can I expect the Gamut Range of the Pixma 9000 to be ?

This test comparison rates the Pixma Pro 9000 Mk II as covering 40% of the Adobe RGB gamut. I'd suspect it covers most of the sRGB space, doing better in some color tones, worse in others.

http://www.printerinfo​.com …120/Color-Performance.htm

ChasP505 wrote in post #10212700
I wouldn't have used the DigitalDog test image unless you were working completely in the Colormatch RGB color space. Even Andrew Rodney purports to be using ProPhoto RGB lately. There are many better print test images available tagged in sRGB and Adobe RGB.

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk …le_pages/test_i​mages.html

And have you tried printing in both Perceptual rendering intent AND Relative intent?

Good point...when I proof his image Relative makes it MUCH more purple than perceptual which actual makes it MORE blue.

Sdiver2489 wrote in post #10212823
Good point...when I proof his image Relative makes it MUCH more purple than perceptual which actual makes it MORE blue.

Just what I'd expect. Relative tends to clip out of gamut colors.

http://www.cambridgein​colour.com …olor-space-conversion.htm

The inkset on my HP printer has a special blue ink to extend the printer's blue performance far beyond sRGB. I believe the Epson 1900 has a similar orange ink.

Thanks for the info guys !! I'll read up on that tomorrow.

I have tried both rendering intents. I should have mentioned that I was using RC above. Overall I have found RC to be a better match but Perceptual does do a much better job with the blues in THIS picture, but then the other colors don't match as well. Other pictures I have tried that have off color blues in them have come out on the purple side as well in both intents.

Wellll.... The answer to the 9000 question is you'll see less objectionable color shifts with intense colors. If you're primarily doing portrait or landscape photos, Relative is fine.