Another anti Canon rant

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
B

birdman

Distinguished
Mar 29, 2001
136
0
18,680
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Trying to convince myself for the umpteenth time that my investment in a
Canon printer was not a big mistake I just created a set of prints using
Canon's canned profiles and custom printer/paper profiles generated using a
Monaco system for the Canon printer using Canon ink and Canon Photo Paper
Plus Glossy. One can purchase and use higher end profiling equipment but
then the profiling equipment starts costing a multiple of the printer,
hardly a worthwhile investment for small volume, quality oriented printing.
(The images originate in a D70 using the raw format, AdobeRGB color space).
The Canon canned profiles: off color, off saturation, off contrast. A
disappointing waste of paper and ink.
The custom profiles: less off color, acceptable saturation, acceptable
contrast. Acceptable print if you did not see the original monitor image.
The same image printed using Epson canned profile and Epson Premium Glossy
Photo Paper: more accurate color, more accurate saturation, more accurate
contrast. Reasonable match to the monitor image..
It is not clear to me if the problem is in the Canon ink formulations
(?inadequate gamut), the software (probably the biggest factor) or both. I
plan to add another high end printer soon--it will not be another Canon.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"birdman" <apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:nr1ue.2376$Bx6.789@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> Trying to convince myself for the umpteenth time that my investment in a
> Canon printer was not a big mistake I just created a set of prints using
> Canon's canned profiles and custom printer/paper profiles generated using
> a Monaco system for the Canon printer using Canon ink and Canon Photo
> Paper Plus Glossy. One can purchase and use higher end profiling equipment
> but then the profiling equipment starts costing a multiple of the printer,
> hardly a worthwhile investment for small volume, quality oriented
> printing.
> (The images originate in a D70 using the raw format, AdobeRGB color
> space).
> The Canon canned profiles: off color, off saturation, off contrast. A
> disappointing waste of paper and ink.
> The custom profiles: less off color, acceptable saturation, acceptable
> contrast. Acceptable print if you did not see the original monitor image.
> The same image printed using Epson canned profile and Epson Premium Glossy
> Photo Paper: more accurate color, more accurate saturation, more accurate
> contrast. Reasonable match to the monitor image..
> It is not clear to me if the problem is in the Canon ink formulations
> (?inadequate gamut), the software (probably the biggest factor) or both. I
> plan to add another high end printer soon--it will not be another Canon.

Or perhaps your RAW images with Adobe RGB ColorSpace.
Perhaps maybe you should try using the Adobe RGB profile for images created
in such a manor.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"birdman" <apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:nr1ue.2376$Bx6.789@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> Trying to convince myself for the umpteenth time that my investment in a
> Canon printer was not a big mistake I just created a set of prints using
> Canon's canned profiles and custom printer/paper profiles generated using
> a Monaco system for the Canon printer using Canon ink and Canon Photo
> Paper Plus Glossy. One can purchase and use higher end profiling equipment
> but then the profiling equipment starts costing a multiple of the printer,
> hardly a worthwhile investment for small volume, quality oriented
> printing.
> (The images originate in a D70 using the raw format, AdobeRGB color
> space).
> The Canon canned profiles: off color, off saturation, off contrast. A
> disappointing waste of paper and ink.
> The custom profiles: less off color, acceptable saturation, acceptable
> contrast. Acceptable print if you did not see the original monitor image.
> The same image printed using Epson canned profile and Epson Premium Glossy
> Photo Paper: more accurate color, more accurate saturation, more accurate
> contrast. Reasonable match to the monitor image..
> It is not clear to me if the problem is in the Canon ink formulations
> (?inadequate gamut), the software (probably the biggest factor) or both. I
> plan to add another high end printer soon--it will not be another Canon.
>

I hate epson....I guess we all have our cross to bear :)
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

birdman wrote:

...I plan to add another high end printer soon--it will not be another
Canon.

Me too. I'm seriously looking at the new Epson 2400.

Frank
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Odd!
I can achieve virtually the same results on an Epson R300 and a Canon S750.
However, both printers are optimized for conversion from sRGB, not Adobe
RGB. First, "standard reference" photos from several internet sites were
used to fine tune each printer using Epson premium glossy paper and Kodak
PP1-A and UPP-4A papers. A Q60 target and file were also used. On the
Epson, The Kodak papers needed gamma set to 1.5 Vivid Bright +5 and yellow
+5 as a start. Magenta may also need a bit of a boost, according to Kodak's
documentation.
Driver gamut conversion may be a problem for you. Raw format conversion also
introduces another variable.

At one point, I ended up discovering that windows, an application, and the
printer drivers were all applying a correction that assumed each was the
only color correction applied. What a mess!


"birdman" <apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:nr1ue.2376$Bx6.789@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> Trying to convince myself for the umpteenth time that my investment in a
> Canon printer was not a big mistake I just created a set of prints using
> Canon's canned profiles and custom printer/paper profiles generated using
> a Monaco system for the Canon printer using Canon ink and Canon Photo
> Paper Plus Glossy. One can purchase and use higher end profiling equipment
> but then the profiling equipment starts costing a multiple of the printer,
> hardly a worthwhile investment for small volume, quality oriented
> printing.
> (The images originate in a D70 using the raw format, AdobeRGB color
> space).
> The Canon canned profiles: off color, off saturation, off contrast. A
> disappointing waste of paper and ink.
> The custom profiles: less off color, acceptable saturation, acceptable
> contrast. Acceptable print if you did not see the original monitor image.
> The same image printed using Epson canned profile and Epson Premium Glossy
> Photo Paper: more accurate color, more accurate saturation, more accurate
> contrast. Reasonable match to the monitor image..
> It is not clear to me if the problem is in the Canon ink formulations
> (?inadequate gamut), the software (probably the biggest factor) or both. I
> plan to add another high end printer soon--it will not be another Canon.
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

birdman wrote:

>Trying to convince myself for the umpteenth time that my investment in a
>Canon printer was not a big mistake I just created a set of prints using
>Canon's canned profiles and custom printer/paper profiles generated using a
>Monaco system for the Canon printer using *Canon ink* and *Canon Photo Paper *
>Plus Glossy. One can purchase and use higher end profiling equipment but
>then the profiling equipment starts costing a multiple of the printer,
>hardly a worthwhile investment for small volume, quality oriented printing.
>(The images originate in a D70 using the raw format, AdobeRGB color space).
>The Canon canned profiles: off color, off saturation, off contrast. A
>disappointing waste of paper and ink.
>The custom profiles: less off color, acceptable saturation, acceptable
>contrast. Acceptable print if you did not see the original monitor image.
>The same image printed using Epson canned profile and Epson Premium Glossy
>Photo Paper: more accurate color, more accurate saturation, more accurate
>contrast. Reasonable match to the monitor image..
>It is not clear to me if the problem is in the Canon ink formulations
>(?inadequate gamut), *the software (probably the biggest factor)* or both. I
>plan to add another high end printer soon--it will not be another Canon.
>
>

Try the i9900

>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Ricardo Morte wrote:

>"birdman" <apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:nr1ue.2376$Bx6.789@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>Trying to convince myself for the umpteenth time that my investment in a
>>Canon printer was not a big mistake I just created a set of prints using
>>Canon's canned profiles and custom printer/paper profiles generated using
>>a Monaco system for the Canon printer using Canon ink and Canon Photo
>>Paper Plus Glossy. One can purchase and use higher end profiling equipment
>>but then the profiling equipment starts costing a multiple of the printer,
>>hardly a worthwhile investment for small volume, quality oriented
>>printing.
>>(The images originate in a D70 using the raw format, AdobeRGB color
>>space).
>>The Canon canned profiles: off color, off saturation, off contrast. A
>>disappointing waste of paper and ink.
>>The custom profiles: less off color, acceptable saturation, acceptable
>>contrast. Acceptable print if you did not see the original monitor image.
>>The same image printed using Epson canned profile and Epson Premium Glossy
>>Photo Paper: more accurate color, more accurate saturation, more accurate
>>contrast. Reasonable match to the monitor image..
>>It is not clear to me if the problem is in the Canon ink formulations
>>(?inadequate gamut), the software (probably the biggest factor) or both. I
>>plan to add another high end printer soon--it will not be another Canon.
>>
>>
>>
>
>I hate epson....I guess we all have our cross to bear :)
>
>

I do not hate Epson. I just think that Canon is an all around better
printer for most people.

>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 19:50:01 -0400, in comp.periphs.printers "PC Medic"
<not@home.com> wrote:


>Or perhaps your RAW images with Adobe RGB ColorSpace.
>Perhaps maybe you should try using the Adobe RGB profile for images created
>in such a manor.

RAW images have no color space. You assign the color space when you do the
raw conversion. The in camera selection of color space only effects jpgs.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
http://EdwardGRuf.com
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 23:31:31 GMT, in comp.periphs.printers "birdman"
<apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote:

>Trying to convince myself for the umpteenth time that my investment in a
>Canon printer was not a big mistake I just created a set of prints using
>Canon's canned profiles and custom printer/paper profiles generated using a
>Monaco system for the Canon printer using Canon ink and Canon Photo Paper
>Plus Glossy. One can purchase and use higher end profiling equipment but
>then the profiling equipment starts costing a multiple of the printer,
>hardly a worthwhile investment for small volume, quality oriented printing.
>(The images originate in a D70 using the raw format, AdobeRGB color space).
>The Canon canned profiles: off color, off saturation, off contrast. A
>disappointing waste of paper and ink.
>The custom profiles: less off color, acceptable saturation, acceptable
>contrast. Acceptable print if you did not see the original monitor image.
>The same image printed using Epson canned profile and Epson Premium Glossy
>Photo Paper: more accurate color, more accurate saturation, more accurate
>contrast. Reasonable match to the monitor image..
>It is not clear to me if the problem is in the Canon ink formulations
>(?inadequate gamut), the software (probably the biggest factor) or both. I
>plan to add another high end printer soon--it will not be another Canon.

While you mention profiling the printer with the Monaco system, you make no
mention of calibrating your monitor. What software are you using to print
and where in the workflow are you using color management for the output,
printer driver or printing software?

----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
http://EdwardGRuf.com
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Frank wrote:

> birdman wrote:
>
> ...I plan to add another high end printer soon--it will not be
> another Canon.
>
> Me too. I'm seriously looking at the new Epson 2400.
>
> Frank
>
>
>
Good. I hope it gets clogged. You deserve it.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:

>
>
> Frank wrote:
>
>> birdman wrote:
>>
>> ...I plan to add another high end printer soon--it will not be
>> another Canon.
>>
>> Me too. I'm seriously looking at the new Epson 2400.
>>
>> Frank
>>
>>
>>
> Good. I hope it gets clogged. You deserve it.

What a childish response. You're mentally deranged and very psychotic.
Get help and get lost.
idiot.
Frank
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

LOL ... Which printer? Maybe it's bad? Have you called Canon? For
sure you're not double profiling?
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Frank wrote:

> birdman wrote:
>
> ...I plan to add another high end printer soon--it will not be another
> Canon.
>
> Me too. I'm seriously looking at the new Epson 2400.
>
I have an R1800, and for for sure I would have considered an R2400 had
it been released when I was in the market.
Vincent Oliver at http://www.photo-i.co.uk/
is doing a review of the R2400 right now. So far, and as expected, the
B&W performance looks pretty good. Gloss of the new inkset on
gloss/semi papers not as good as R800/1800 with Gloss Optimiser.
Review is far from finished.
I like Vincent's printer reviews. He is much more diplomatic than most.
IIRC he describes Canon printers as bright and vivid.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

frederick wrote:

> Frank wrote:
>
>> birdman wrote:
>>
>> ...I plan to add another high end printer soon--it will not be
>> another Canon.
>>
>> Me too. I'm seriously looking at the new Epson 2400.
>>
> I have an R1800, and for for sure I would have considered an R2400 had
> it been released when I was in the market.


Why? I thought the presence of a gloss optomizer would be an advantage
of the R1800.

> Vincent Oliver at http://www.photo-i.co.uk/
> is doing a review of the R2400 right now. So far, and as expected,
> the B&W performance looks pretty good. Gloss of the new inkset on
> gloss/semi papers not as good as R800/1800 with Gloss Optimiser.
> Review is far from finished.
> I like Vincent's printer reviews. He is much more diplomatic than
> most. IIRC he describes Canon printers as bright and vivid.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

frederick wrote:

> Frank wrote:
>
>> birdman wrote:
>>
>> ...I plan to add another high end printer soon--it will not be
>> another Canon.
>>
>> Me too. I'm seriously looking at the new Epson 2400.
>>
> I have an R1800, and for for sure I would have considered an R2400 had
> it been released when I was in the market.
> Vincent Oliver at http://www.photo-i.co.uk/
> is doing a review of the R2400 right now. So far, and as expected, the
> B&W performance looks pretty good. Gloss of the new inkset on
> gloss/semi papers not as good as R800/1800 with Gloss Optimiser.
> Review is far from finished.
> I like Vincent's printer reviews. He is much more diplomatic than most.
> IIRC he describes Canon printers as bright and vivid.

Yeah...the B/W performance of the canon i9900 is very lacking. The epson
2400 look very promising.
Frank
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Frank wrote:

> frederick wrote:
>
>> Frank wrote:
>>
>>> birdman wrote:
>>>
>>> ...I plan to add another high end printer soon--it will not be
>>> another Canon.
>>>
>>> Me too. I'm seriously looking at the new Epson 2400.
>>>
>> I have an R1800, and for for sure I would have considered an R2400
>> had it been released when I was in the market.
>> Vincent Oliver at http://www.photo-i.co.uk/
>> is doing a review of the R2400 right now. So far, and as expected,
>> the B&W performance looks pretty good. Gloss of the new inkset on
>> gloss/semi papers not as good as R800/1800 with Gloss Optimiser.
>> Review is far from finished.
>> I like Vincent's printer reviews. He is much more diplomatic than
>> most. IIRC he describes Canon printers as bright and vivid.
>
>
> Yeah...the B/W performance of the canon i9900 is very good. The epson
> 2400 does not look very promising.
> Frank


I think the i9900 is the best wide format value out there.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:
>
>
> Frank wrote:
>
>> frederick wrote:
>>
>>> Frank wrote:
>>>
>>>> birdman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ...I plan to add another high end printer soon--it will not be
>>>> another Canon.
>>>>
>>>> Me too. I'm seriously looking at the new Epson 2400.
>>>>
>>> I have an R1800, and for for sure I would have considered an R2400
>>> had it been released when I was in the market.
>>> Vincent Oliver at http://www.photo-i.co.uk/
>>> is doing a review of the R2400 right now. So far, and as expected,
>>> the B&W performance looks pretty good. Gloss of the new inkset on
>>> gloss/semi papers not as good as R800/1800 with Gloss Optimiser.
>>> Review is far from finished.
>>> I like Vincent's printer reviews. He is much more diplomatic than
>>> most. IIRC he describes Canon printers as bright and vivid.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yeah...the B/W performance of the canon i9900 is very good. The epson
>> 2400 does not look very promising.
>> Frank
>
>
>
> I think the i9900 is the best wide format value out there.

Oh...so you've got one right?
Frank
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article <u1hue.163$go.37@fed1read05>, fb@nospam.com says...
> measekite wrote:
> > I think the i9900 is the best wide format value out there.
>
> Oh...so you've got one right?
> Frank
>
Even a parrot is right sometimes.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:

>
>
> Frank wrote:
>
>> frederick wrote:
>>
>>> Frank wrote:
>>>
>>>> birdman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ...I plan to add another high end printer soon--it will not be
>>>> another Canon.
>>>>
>>>> Me too. I'm seriously looking at the new Epson 2400.
>>>>
>>> I have an R1800, and for for sure I would have considered an R2400
>>> had it been released when I was in the market.
>>> Vincent Oliver at http://www.photo-i.co.uk/
>>> is doing a review of the R2400 right now. So far, and as expected,
>>> the B&W performance looks pretty good. Gloss of the new inkset on
>>> gloss/semi papers not as good as R800/1800 with Gloss Optimiser.
>>> Review is far from finished.
>>> I like Vincent's printer reviews. He is much more diplomatic than
>>> most. IIRC he describes Canon printers as bright and vivid.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yeah...the B/W performance of the canon i9900 is very good. The epson
>> 2400 does not look very promising.
>> Frank
>
>
>
> I think the i9900 is the best wide format value out there.

????
If you want quality prints for display on fine art papers or other matte
media then the i9950 is out of the equation entirely. If you want gloss
colour photos of flowers, then the 9950 is very nice. On the contentious
dye vs pigment arguments, then I think Canon have answered the question
themselves by releasing pigment ink based wide format pro printers.
Best value must take a user's needs into account.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

frederick wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Frank wrote:
>>
>>> frederick wrote:
>>>
>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> birdman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> ...I plan to add another high end printer soon--it will not be
>>>>> another Canon.
>>>>>
>>>>> Me too. I'm seriously looking at the new Epson 2400.
>>>>>
>>>> I have an R1800, and for for sure I would have considered an R2400
>>>> had it been released when I was in the market.
>>>> Vincent Oliver at http://www.photo-i.co.uk/
>>>> is doing a review of the R2400 right now. So far, and as expected,
>>>> the B&W performance looks pretty good. Gloss of the new inkset on
>>>> gloss/semi papers not as good as R800/1800 with Gloss Optimiser.
>>>> Review is far from finished.
>>>> I like Vincent's printer reviews. He is much more diplomatic than
>>>> most. IIRC he describes Canon printers as bright and vivid.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah...the B/W performance of the canon i9900 is very good. The
>>> epson 2400 does not look very promising.
>>> Frank
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I think the i9900 is the best wide format value out there.
>
>
> ????
> If you want quality prints for display on fine art papers or other
> matte media then the i9950 is out of the equation entirely. If you
> want gloss colour photos of flowers, then the 9950 is very nice. On
> the contentious dye vs pigment arguments, then I think Canon have
> answered the question themselves by releasing pigment ink based wide
> format pro printers.
> Best value must take a user's needs into account.


The only reason that I can see for getting a pigmented ink printer is if
you intend to sell your print.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

OR --- even a broken clock is right twice a day.
"Irwin Peckinloomer" <semimoto@spamforYahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d240adb47e378c39896b5@news.aracnet.com...
> In article <u1hue.163$go.37@fed1read05>, fb@nospam.com says...
>> measekite wrote:
>> > I think the i9900 is the best wide format value out there.
>>
>> Oh...so you've got one right?
>> Frank
>>
> Even a parrot is right sometimes.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:
>
>
> frederick wrote:
>
>> measekite wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Frank wrote:
>>>
>>>> frederick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> birdman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...I plan to add another high end printer soon--it will not be
>>>>>> another Canon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Me too. I'm seriously looking at the new Epson 2400.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I have an R1800, and for for sure I would have considered an R2400
>>>>> had it been released when I was in the market.
>>>>> Vincent Oliver at http://www.photo-i.co.uk/
>>>>> is doing a review of the R2400 right now. So far, and as expected,
>>>>> the B&W performance looks pretty good. Gloss of the new inkset on
>>>>> gloss/semi papers not as good as R800/1800 with Gloss Optimiser.
>>>>> Review is far from finished.
>>>>> I like Vincent's printer reviews. He is much more diplomatic than
>>>>> most. IIRC he describes Canon printers as bright and vivid.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah...the B/W performance of the canon i9900 is very good. The
>>>> epson 2400 does not look very promising.
>>>> Frank
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think the i9900 is the best wide format value out there.
>>
>>
>>
>> ????
>> If you want quality prints for display on fine art papers or other
>> matte media then the i9950 is out of the equation entirely. If you
>> want gloss colour photos of flowers, then the 9950 is very nice. On
>> the contentious dye vs pigment arguments, then I think Canon have
>> answered the question themselves by releasing pigment ink based wide
>> format pro printers.
>> Best value must take a user's needs into account.
>
>
>
> The only reason that I can see for getting a pigmented ink printer is if
> you intend to sell your print.


Or display it, or use matte papers.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

> Heh - and a Canon rep told me that their iP9950 on PR 101 paper had 100
> year archival properties...

Are you talking about the army of Canon reps that are hitting the blogs
and message boards? Found one that's really pushing the Chromalife100
or some such this is reported to be stock on the pixus ip9910.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

frederick wrote:

> If you want quality prints for display on fine art papers or other matte
> media then the i9950 is out of the equation entirely. If you want gloss
> colour photos of flowers, then the 9950 is very nice. On the contentious
> dye vs pigment arguments, then I think Canon have answered the question
> themselves by releasing pigment ink based wide format pro printers.
> Best value must take a user's needs into account.

Canon has pigment printers? Which ones? My 8500 uses the same inks as
the 9900 (and the i950), and I am not aware that they are pigment based.

Gary Eickmeier
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom