i9950/i9900: Green cast on Hobbicolors inks.

[lewisham_phil]

Jackson, assuming that my monitor is correctly calibrated (using a Spyder 2 actually) and I'm using the same printer and the same inks, that leaves the paper as the only variable.
I am guessing aswell, that a change in inks is a greater variable than paper types, within reason; I am using a Canon Glossy paper, which although not the same as the one Pharmacist used for his calibration, is obviously close enough!
Whatever, the profiles which are supposedly for the paper I'm using are way off when using Hobbicolors inks.

 

[jackson]

I gave up on photo printing using the IP series (I called it an 'olive' cast) using the Hobbicolors ink (I got better results on an old HP using generic ink) and just used a CP-200 to print photos.
I've contemplated getting a custom profile from one of the on line sources, but hesitate because of the cost for multiple printers (very little luck with these machines:2 dead, one dying over four years - light daily printing, nothing strenuous.

 

[pharmacist]

@pharmacist

If profiling requires the printer+monitor (plus paper plus ink?), how can Lewisham_phil benefit from your profile ?

The monitor is not the factor determining whether or not your prints come out with a colour cast. A colour cast on your printout will still be seen whether or not your screen is calibrated if you are using the standard setting of your monitor. It is the combination printer/ink/paper which determines the colour cast. Some types of paper behave the same, so you can use the same profile without great differences.

 

[pharmacist]

Pharmacist, you are a star, sir!
Any one of your profiles is giving results immeasurably better than the muddy brown for purples and sallow flesh of the previous efforts; for the first time I am seeing what this printer can actually do, and it's quite a revelation.
By the way, I am using UW-8 replacement ink, but I also bought blank empty cartridges from Hobbicolors aswell. I was previously on G+G carts, many of which were unreliable, so I wasn't going to refill those.
Your thoughts that the SiHLX profile would be the best for the Ilford paper was spot on, and I think the Canon GP401 profile probably suits my Canon Glossy Photo Paper best. I shall be experimenting with renewed enthusiasm!
Its 1AM here in London now, but I think I might just try a few more test prints...
Thanks once again
Phil

Phil,

could you post some pictures made with standard Canon profile and with the SihlX profile printed ? I am curious what the difference is between these 2 profiles.

 

[lewisham_phil]

Will do Pharmacist; I shall print a test sheet tomorrow. I guess if I print using the two profiles, and scan them simultaneously the differences should be apparent despite any vagaries of my scanner (Epson 3200 which is pretty good, though not calibrated).
Actually, I was assuming you want them both printing onto the same Canon Glossy paper?

 

[pharmacist]

Phil,

It is up to you which paper you want to use, just the difference of standard Canon PPPro and the SihlX/Canon GP401 profile. I suggest you to use Ilford paper with the (problematic OEM) Canon PPPro and the (Hobbicolors UW-8 optimised) SihlX profile and show us the results.

 

[lewisham_phil]

Pharmacist, I have printed a test sheet on the Ilford Galerie Classic Pearl, and the scanned image is here:

http://s304.photobucket.com/albums/nn169/lewisham_phil/?action=view&current=testprint1.jpg

By the way, the original test print is available to download at top left here:
http://www.digitaldog.net/tips/index.shtml
(there is a lot of good stuff on that page actually)

The Left hand image is using the profile actually supplied by Ilford for this paper on the i9950; the right hand one is using your SihlX profile.
You can see the green tinge has been largely reduced, and it is a lot closer to the original.

One thing that I have noticed looking at this test print is how poorly some of the brighter pure colours translate; the magenta blocks on the right, below the cyan for instance, are nowhere near the pure magenta on screen. (Sure enough the pure magenta shows up as 'out of gamut' when I put the eyedropper on it in photoshop) but I have put a drop of photomagenta ink on the image (top right) to show what surely should be possible?
I would be interested to here if you manage to get vivid magentas!

 

[pharmacist]

Phil,

To get vivid magentas one must use the perceptual or even the saturation rendering intent, then the colours will blow from the paper. Try the saturation intent for vivid colours: it will work for sure. All colours out of gamut will be brightened to match the colours on your screen exceptionally well.

The results are really astonishing when compared to the tinned profile for the OEM Canon ink/paper combination.

 

[lewisham_phil]

Well, it's been an interesting few days! I tried as you suggested pharmacist, but anything I tried seemed to make it worse; the reds and magentas seemed darker than ever, almost as if there was black ink contaminating the head... aha!
Sure enough the black cart had leaked well of the head, (caused by a seal detached from the orange plastic cartridge closure seals, which I had carelessly managed to jam in the well without noticing) and the red and photomagenta had soaked up significant quantities of black ink.
So I changed these, and the adjacent green just to be sure.
So now we're back on track; I've redone a few tests, and your profiles are now absolutely spot on to my eye, complete with vivid reds and magentas!
Thanks once again for all your help.
Phil

 

[Tin Ho]

You might have an ink contamination as the cause of your green cast problem in the first place. It is an easily overlooked problem when ink cartridges are overfilled or leaked a little. It is often not detected except that colors are messed up.