Epson R1900 or Canon Pro9000MKII to refill with Precision Colors Inks?

[mikling]

Softproofing? Gee I guess the fact that I do it and it is part of creating a profiles doesn't count.

Take a year or two and learn by doing and experimenting rather than being an online expert. Buy tons of paper, get a profiling system, experiment and learn. Hands on...... not by reading. Buy numerous different printers and actually use them to discover their weaknesses and strengths. That's the way I did it. I have wasted/used over 600 sheets of letter size to get where I am over a space of two years. The guys at luminous Landscape are all serious printers and professionals and actually provide courses on printing for sizeable sums. Photo sites are full of erroneous imformation posted by persons who've read about it and not done it themselves. Many comment about a product without a serious perspective about competing products.


Look, color management is NOT practiced nor understood by most photographers. You are dealing with advanced techniques that even those who use color management sometimes misunderstand and don\t fully comprehend. I am still on the learning path but I've cleared a few hurdles with many more to go. It's a path of discovery that never ends.

 

[aruiz]

This is my 2 cents.

The first: if you need archival prints buy an Epson and use pigment based ink. I am sure this is a common knowledge. Canon Pro9000 MKII is a dye based printer. It will print absolutely fabulous color photos with very little effort no questions about it. But if you need archival prints it is not for you period.

The 2nd: Your high end monitors are absolutely among the highest end monitors. They have probably great gamuts that very few others can compete. If you choose an Epson printer and use a set of 3rd party pigment based ink or even if you decide to go for a Canon Pro9000 MKII. the gamut of the printer/ink/paper will likely be no match to the gamut of your monitors. So matching colors between your monitors and the printer you choose will not be trivial. It is a huge task of color management work. It will be far more complicated than choosing a printer and ink for the printer.

I am not saying it can not be done. It will be fun and I am sure I will be one among many who would be interested in learning your experiences when you get it done successfully.

leo8088, thank you for your 2 cents.

Really, I don't need archival prints. It is not very important on my case. But I understant that for other people it could be very important, then their decission is easy: pigment ink.

I work with 2 different monitors connected to the same PC. My secondary monitor is cheaper that my main monitor but also colors reproduced on this cheaper monitor are impossible to print on paper. I use a very good sample "printed" on a local PRO photo lab and also on their photo lab PRO paper are colors than they can't reproduce.


I don't know what I will finally buy (Pro9000 or R1900 or $R2880$) . I will inform here of the final results. But results with refilled inks because results with OEM inks is possible to find some comparison on Internet.

 

[aruiz]

Softproofing using the mfr's profiles will give you an idea of the potential of the printer if OEM inks and papers are used.

Mikling, thats seems to be a very good method but only valid for who wants to use OEM inks with manufacturer papers. I like the quality/price ratio of Epson paper then if I buy a Epson printer I will use the manufacturer paper. But I want to refill the cartridges with the ink that you sell.

If I compare on http://www.printerinfo.com/content/...oto-Printer-Review-1120/Color-Performance.htm the color gamut of the OEM inks of a Pro9000 vs the color gamut of the R1900, also with OEM inks, then I see a big difference wirh a much greater gamut on the R1900. Suposing that these results are valid results.

But using Image Specialists inks, do you think that the difference would be the same?

If someone here has a R1900 and has profiled it using Image Specialist inks, could explain their results? Or better, I will be very happy if someone could send me a profile to compare soft-proofing some images test.

 

[aruiz]

This Canon printer prints with high resolution, there is no banding nor grain on their prints. But this printer is a nightmare for me on color accuracy.

Hum... You actually blame the printer, not the ink, for the poor color accuracy?

Yes, leo8088. I dont know exactly where is my issue but seems that the inks arent the issue.

A theory that I have is that Canon wants to avoid that people can use other inks than OEM. Then a way to avoid the use of refilled cartridges could be that users cant disable the color management (via driver or via firmware on the printer) even if on the printer driver you check the option No color management.
On my case seems that 2 profiles are applyed: my custom profile and a undisablable profile. Then, using my custom profile, I have adjusted manually the values of C, M, and Y color on printer driver. The results are much better but not perfect but that demonstrate that the issue isnt the ink.

 

[leo8088]

This Canon printer prints with high resolution, there is no banding nor grain on their prints. But this printer is a nightmare for me on color accuracy.

Hum... You actually blame the printer, not the ink, for the poor color accuracy?

Yes, leo8088. I dont know exactly where is my issue but seems that the inks arent the issue.

Aruiz, If you refill OEM ink cartridges on a Canon printer with 3rd party ink The printer will not know that you are in fact printing with 3rd party ink, provided that you use a resetter . If the printer prints ugly colors you have to doubt the quality of the ink. The printer basically just do what it is programmed to print colors based on the OEM profile produced for the OEM ink. The printer is not doing anything wrong. So why will you blame the printer for not printing the right colors?

I doubt that the printer will print differently even if you don't use a resetter. If they do you can be assured that may Canon customers will file a class action suit to get the justice served. This is in the United State. HP was sued for redesigning an ink cartridge for no functional benefit to customers but make refilling more difficult. HP lost in court and had to teach people how to refill the cartridge on its web site. I wish I still remember which cartridge it was so I could point it out for you.

If the printer prints wrong colors (this is not the case for the few brands of 3rd party ink recommended by members of this forum by the way) you can buy a tool (such as profile prism) to make a custom profile which should correct the colors to a certain extent for you. Believe me the colors will still not be identical to OEM ink due to the difference in the ink's gamut. You will still have a problem that the colors on the print are still not the same as the colors on your monitor.

This is where Mikling brings in his suggestion of softproofing technique. Based on information from the web site pointed to in Mikling's post softproofing will make the colors on your monitor to match what you will see on your print. You will get whatever is seen on your monitor. The problem with this methodology is: what you see on the monitor is likely not what is in the original image. The proof method is promoted by a few vendors but many professionals apparently do not use it and it is never a topic in a widely participated forum in www.photo.net.

A professional proof system can cost you thousands of dollars if not more than 10 thousnads. They are very expensive so I have never had a chance to own one. But basically they are the proof systems accepted by the printing industry and many professional photographers. My understanding of such proof systems is they produce input and output profiles for the image capturing devices and monitors that you will see as accurate as possible the original colors of the captured image on the monitor (this is where expensive monitors are required). For the printer, ink and medium they of course produce a custom profile with a preferred rendering intent (colorimetric, perceptual or absolute colorimetric, etc.) for the printer to print colors, especially in the highlight and shadow area), to be natural, balanced and visually compatible with the environment of a scene. You can compare the printed image with the high quality image on the screen and detect anything wrong in the print. The proof system will not match colors exactly between the print and the monitor. It is for producing a high quality print that is close to the high quality image on the monitor. Such prof system demands repeatability, reliability and quality.

The softproofing technique pointed out by Mikling's post (the web site) does make your print look almost identical to what you see on your monitor. But the softproofing itself does not do anything to optimize your print. If you use a terrible printer profile you still get a ugly print despite softproofing in place. The softproofing itself lacks what is needed to optimize your printer profile. You do need more than softproofing to optimize your prints.

Color management is easily misunderstood. I am not an expert. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[aruiz]

Hi leo8088.

Thank you for worry about my issues on color accuracy on my MP540 and to try to help me.

Also excuse me for my bad English. I am doing a big effort to try to explain correctly. But I am not correctly expressed on my other posts.

Exactly my issue aren't a "ugly" colors like you say. Also I don't blame the printer for no printing right colors.

The printer don't print "ugly" colors. Prints with a color cast, using my own profile, after a correct and repeated profiling.

When I soft-proof an image I see slight differences on color (confirmation that the profile is correct) but on the driver print preview I see a magenta color cast. The same color cast that I obtain, finally, on paper.

Seems like it was twice profiled. One time for the custom profile and another for an "automatic" profile that I can't disable.

I understand that you are saying me that if I refill the cartridges then I will obtain some different results than a 3rd manufacturer. And different results to a 4rd or 5th manufacturer.

If we can messure the color of inks, probably my OEM inks will slighly different of exactly the same model of inks but selled on USA, for example.

I use often Epson Glossy Photo Paper (reference C13S042178). I have a box of 20 sheets that is not exactly the same white color than others. Is slighly yellow color. I use these sheets for everyday printing.

I imagine that's the main reason to exist colorimeters and sensors, to try to normalize the results to a standard.

You will still have a problem that the colors on the print are still not the same as the colors on your monitor

I suppose that never I will obtain on paper the colors of the monitor. Very different gamut. Not with OEM inks not with third party inks not with a R2880.

Recently I have read a document that begins with:

"Colors on monitor ≠ Colors on printout
In general, people think that with a calibrated monitor and a
matching printer profile, photos/pictures will print out the
same way they appear on screen. But this is NOT the case.
Currently, there is no printer available, which is able to
reproduce all the visible colors you see in life or on your
monitor screen. With the use of CMYK (Cyan, Magenta,
Yellow and Black) inks, it is physically impossible, even if
your printer uses six or more colors."

Then, seems that you have reason.

About Soft-proofing:

I think that's a tool to see on the monitor how the printer will print. Then you can modify the image to avoid some out of gamma colors. I will prefer to not use the soft proof and that the printer will print the entire Adobe RGB color gamut, but seems impossible. Only a few monitors are capable to reproduce all the AdobeRGB color gamut.

On digital cameras we have a very similar "alert". Once you have take a picture you can review the histogram to see if you have lost information on Highlights or on shadows. THen you can take another picture compensating the EV value. With models with LiveView you can see on real-time the histogram. I will prefer to not use the histogram but the dynamic range of actual camera sensors bind to use it.

Here, only the PRO photo lab will give you ICC profiles to soft-proof your images prior send to print. Some big but amateurs oriented photo labs if you request the updated color profile of their machine, they offers a sRGB profile on the better cases. On the worse case they question about what is an ICC profile?

You can see some example of photo labs that adjust often their ICC profiles and permits to their customers to download it:
http://www.labocom.es/Descargas/Perfiles-c-3021.htm
http://www.digitalatl.com/descargas.php
http://www.benilab.es/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8&Itemid=16

Dear leo8088. I see that you try to help me. And I am very happy of it but now my main concern is about to buy an A3 printer to use third party inks like I request on the subject.

You has told me that if I am looking for archive purposals is better to select a pigment printer. Also I read that to obtain detail on shadows also is better pigment ink?

Please would you tell me what do you think about it?

And I prefer to not spend the money that here costs a R2880 specially if there a few quality difference with the R1900 on both case using third party inks.

Do you have any experience, please?

Thank you a lot.

Xavi.

 

[TXAvi8tor]

Aruiz, my first post here, but >45 years of photo experience including professional color labs. Now enthusiastically printing my own photographs digitally.

You've said here that for you, print permanence is secondary to accurate color, and that you are concerned about getting accurate color using third party inks. My opinion, based on my limited experience, is that you should purchase the Canon printer, print, and leave your worries behind. Other people will have different experience and different opinions. I understand and accept that, but MY experience is that keeping an Epson pigment-type printer going is a nightmare. I ended up discarding an R2400 printer after endless effort - I was not able to keep the print heads from clogging. ;-(

I recently purchased a Canon 9000 Mk II. It is terrific. Accurate, beautiful, CONTROLLABLE color, using both OEM (Canon) and Hobbicolors inks. The colors with OEM and aftermarket inks are NOT identical to each other, but the differences are small, consistent and easily compensated for in printing. I have no hesitation telling you to use aftermarket inks, as I'm sure Precision inks are as consistent as Hobbicolors.

My monitor is profiled using a Spyder2express. I print using mainly Qimage, but Photoshop CS4 should be similar - I allow the program to manage color, turn off color management in the print driver but can fine-tune color and density using manual control in the print driver. It's consistent, and I record my fine-tune settings in a simple text file so I can easily repeat them.

It _is_ possible to get excellent color that is very consistent and very near that displayed on my calibrated monitor - and I don't have to fight the printer to achieve this. I know many people use Epson printers with excellent results. I'm just not one of them.

hth,

Larry

 

[aruiz]

Aruiz, my first post here, but >45 years of photo experience including professional color labs. Now enthusiastically printing my own photographs digitally.

You've said here that for you, print permanence is secondary to accurate color, and that you are concerned about getting accurate color using third party inks. My opinion, based on my limited experience, is that you should purchase the Canon printer, print, and leave your worries behind. Other people will have different experience and different opinions. I understand and accept that, but MY experience is that keeping an Epson pigment-type printer going is a nightmare. I ended up discarding an R2400 printer after endless effort - I was not able to keep the print heads from clogging. ;-(

I recently purchased a Canon 9000 Mk II. It is terrific. Accurate, beautiful, CONTROLLABLE color, using both OEM (Canon) and Hobbicolors inks. The colors with OEM and aftermarket inks are NOT identical to each other, but the differences are small, consistent and easily compensated for in printing. I have no hesitation telling you to use aftermarket inks, as I'm sure Precision inks are as consistent as Hobbicolors.

My monitor is profiled using a Spyder2express. I print using mainly Qimage, but Photoshop CS4 should be similar - I allow the program to manage color, turn off color management in the print driver but can fine-tune color and density using manual control in the print driver. It's consistent, and I record my fine-tune settings in a simple text file so I can easily repeat them.

It _is_ possible to get excellent color that is very consistent and very near that displayed on my calibrated monitor - and I don't have to fight the printer to achieve this. I know many people use Epson printers with excellent results. I'm just not one of them.

hth,

Larry

Larry: many many thanks for your reply.

I am very happy to read your answer. I don't know if I'm so happy because it is the answer that I want to read...

If your experience working with "colors" is greater than 45 years I'm sure that your eyes are very trained to see and compare colors.

Larry, please, could you tell me how your Pro9000 reproduces colors/details in shadows with OEM inks and with your refilled carts?

And what do you think about the color gamut?

My experience about Epson printers is the same than yours. In my case 3 Epson printers died due to clogs. The Pro9000 has a replaceable print head. THen, if a clog occurs I think that's very easy to unclog it, uninstalling the printhead and soaking it on distilled water.

Could be better to lose some color gamut to avoid clogging problems.

The main problem is that I don't know how the R1900 print with refilled inks compared with Pro9000 with refilled inks. Now I have a very important opinion that a Pro9000 with refilled inks is very good!

With OEM inks there is a comparison: http://www.printerinfo.com/content/...oto-Printer-Review-1120/Color-Performance.htm

There is a big difference on Color Gamut Score.

If the decission was thinking about the OEM inks, the R1900 has a wide gamut. But using third party inks will be impossible to find a comparison.

Larry, once more many many thanks for your very important opinion.

Best Regards,
Xavi.

 

[TXAvi8tor]

Larry: many many thanks for your reply.

I am very happy to read your answer. I don't know if I'm so happy because it is the answer that I want to read...

If your experience working with "colors" is greater than 45 years I'm sure that your eyes are very trained to see and compare colors.

Larry, please, could you tell me how your Pro9000 reproduces colors/details in shadows with OEM inks and with your refilled carts?

I use the 'Printer Test File' found here (first link in the left column) to test output on MY printer, using various papers, inks, and settings. I own a couple of Color Checkers, so I can compare test prints to the real thing in various lighting conditions. Also, and at least equally important: the various gray targets (scales at the top, the b&w of the Digital Dog and the background in the 'hand' image allow one to critically evaluate crossover (color casts) or the lack of same in highlights and shadows. HINT: For the best, most satisfying color, balance your prints to make grays neutral and let the rest of the print fall where it may. Use of a standardized test image minimizes (imo, ELIMINATES) subjective variables that come from trying to match colors in your own work: skin tones, scenery, sky, etc. If you make a standardized image look 'right' you are 99% of the way to making prints YOU find pleasing.

And what do you think about the color gamut?

My experience about Epson printers is the same than yours. In my case 3 Epson printers died due to clogs. The Pro9000 has a replaceable print head. THen, if a clog occurs I think that's very easy to unclog it, uninstalling the printhead and soaking it on distilled water.

Could be better to lose some color gamut to avoid clogging problems.

Aruiz, a printer that doesn't print, or produces prints with banding, streaking, puddling, etc. has NO gamut, regardless of its theoretical advantages. THAT is the bottom line....

I've accomplished both formal study of color theory and practical, real-world application of such theory. Here's REALITY: The human visual system is capable of very small RELATIVE color discriminations - as small as 1 to 3 CC (Kodak Color Compensation) units for a trained, experienced individual. But it's a lousy judge of ABSOLUTE color!

This means that given a reference image, an experienced individual can perceive very small color differences when comparing a test side-by-side with the reference. But when viewing a test image BY ITSELF, much greater differences in color (in some cases more than 10 CC's) can go un-noticed by the same trained, experienced evaluator! So I must say to you that above a minimum threshold, gamut is much more a theoretical concern than a real one. By above a minimum threshold, I mean that there must be a minimum representation of RGBCMY (primary and complementary colors) in a photographic image. But once this threshold is reached, unless one views two prints side by side or holds a print in front of the scene it represents (for a direct comparison), the computer located just behind the image capturing device fills in the 'missing' gamut.

Theoreticians will argue, and present all sorts of well-reasoned logic to support their arguments. LET THEM. I reviewed the article you reference. The Epson achieves only 47% of the aRGB gamut, itself a theoretical construct representing reality. Yes, the Canon achieves less: only 40%. That's a 15-18% difference. Big deal... NOT! (my logic continues below)

The main problem is that I don't know how the R1900 print with refilled inks compared with Pro9000 with refilled inks. Now I have a very important opinion that a Pro9000 with refilled inks is very good!

With OEM inks there is a comparison: http://www.printerinfo.com/content/...oto-Printer-Review-1120/Color-Performance.htm

There is a big difference on Color Gamut Score.

If the decision was thinking about the OEM inks, the R1900 has a wide gamut. But using third party inks will be impossible to find a comparison.

One can argue that if the best a particular system can do is only about half of a representative gamut, every per cent counts. My experience is that this is INCORRECT - not only for myself (using a critical, trained visual system) but for a broad range of viewers, both trained and untrained: If your brain has to fill in HALF of the gamut, theory goes out the window - BOTH systems are subjective representations of reality; neither is close enough to make gamut a deciding factor!

But "three Epson printers died due to clogs" is definitive. No output=no gamut. I bought an Epson precisely for the theoretical advantages (wider gamut, longer life). Some users have gotten great results with Epson printers over many years. I haven't been able to use after-market inks without clogging - and if factory cartridges are required for ME to get reliable output, the system is too expensive for ME to use.

Consider also, from the article you reference: We also test printing onto Ilford Galerie Smooth Glossy paper with another custom profile, but this didn't turn out that well; even with the custom profile, the colors were more inaccurate than the default profile on Canon's own paper. It is also worth remembering that the results you may get from this printer are very dependent on the paper that you print on; different papers will have very different results.

This is a very high quality, highly regarded paper. But the results were not very good as far as gamut accuracy. The good news is that PAPER & INK have a major impact on output. Therefore, you WILL have to test to determine which combination produces prints you like. You will likely find that some subjects are more pleasing on one paper than another, because one emphasizes greens and blues, and the other reproduces warm colors 'better' according to your tastes, while a third may be more neutral overall. In other words, the printer and the inks are not the only variables; one cannot take the printer hardware in isolation. It's necessary to consider the entire output system - printer, ink, paper.

My approach is to use hardware that is reliable for me, a CONSISTENT ink supplier and test papers to find the ones that produce the most pleasing color for particular subjects. This may mean a broader gamut or not - a print with very neutral blacks and grays (from dark to light) may best reproduce some subjects, even if the absolute gamut is limited.

hth,

Larry

 

[aruiz]

Dear Larry.

Thank you for your extend reply.

Reading your reply anybody will see that's write with logical and for somenone with experience.

For "novices", like me, is necessary to read it 2 times, to undestand completely.

Here is too late. Tomorrow I will it read one more time.

Thank you a lot for your time.

Regards,
Xavi.