Pro-100 Way Off On Default Profiles

[RogerR]

Got my new Pro-100 last night. OEM ink (for now). Did the alignment and nozzle check. All good.

I proceed to print a couple of Photo Paper Glossy 2 4x6s using "printer manages colors" in LR and with the "Properties" in a default state.

The prints appear significantly darker than they should.

So, I decided to bite the bullet and do a profile with my ColorMunki. Using my profile in LR and with printer "color matching" set to none, it prints well. But the "preview" screen's appearance is way off.

My conclusion is that my paper/ink profile is significantly modified from the normal Canon profile. I have two questions.

1. Any idea why the default is so far off?
2. Should I be worried about this?

Thanks!

RR

 

[lowell374]

Got my new Pro-100 last night. OEM ink (for now). Did the alignment and nozzle check. All good.

I proceed to print a couple of Photo Paper Glossy 2 4x6s using "printer manages colors" in LR and with the "Properties" in a default state.

The prints appear significantly darker than they should.

So, I decided to bite the bullet and do a profile with my ColorMunki. Using my profile in LR and with printer "color matching" set to none, it prints well. But the "preview" screen's appearance is way off.

My conclusion is that my paper/ink profile is significantly modified from the normal Canon profile. I have two questions.

1. Any idea why the default is so far off?
2. Should I be worried about this?

Thanks!

RR

Two questions:
Does the monitor seem to have the correct profile running? Sometimes the CMS hickups and doesn't load the display profile, thus the 'TOO BRIGHT" display.
Can you load other printer profiles and have them work correctly? Argyll's CMS can create an "inverse" profile. Loading that one will tell you instantly wheather your system is working correctly or a hardware problem exists.

 

[RogerR]

The monitor profile is correct as far as I can determine. Prior to profiling it with the ColorMunki, I didn't run any color management for the screen. After profiling, it was lighter in the shadow areas and the screen remains that way now. If the CM display profile didn't load, the screen would be a a bit darker rather than lighter.

Plus, my print looks very much like the picture displayed in LightRoom (i.e., the print matches the appearances of what I was editing). It's only the "print preview" screen that's out of wack.

I hadn't tried Argyll's CMS or any other profiles at this point. But, it occurred to me that I hadn't tried directly using the Canon provided Pro-100 paper/ink profiles within Lightroom. So, I substituted their OEM profile for Photo Paper Plus Glossy paper.....and the preview screen was just as wacky as it was with my custom profile. It makes skin tones much more "ruddy" and less warm than they should be.

RR

 

[lowell374]

The monitor profile is correct as far as I can determine. Prior to profiling it with the ColorMunki, I didn't run any color management for the screen. After profiling, it was lighter in the shadow areas and the screen remains that way now. If the CM display profile didn't load, the screen would be a a bit darker rather than lighter.

Plus, my print looks very much like the picture displayed in LightRoom (i.e., the print matches the appearances of what I was editing). It's only the "print preview" screen that's out of wack.

I hadn't tried Argyll's CMS or any other profiles at this point. But, it occurred to me that I hadn't tried directly using the Canon provided Pro-100 paper/ink profiles within Lightroom. So, I substituted their OEM profile for Photo Paper Plus Glossy paper.....and the preview screen was just as wacky as it was with my custom profile. It makes skin tones much more "ruddy" and less warm than they should be.

RR

 

[lowell374]

I would try one more profile, something that would be close, even if it's not exactly the paper you're using. Make a print.
From my reading of your posts it seems that the only problem is LR's software profiling view of what it thinks your print should look like. Correct? If that's the case the the BtoA transform in the profile could be bad. But with three different profiles? Seems to me that could indicate a problem either with LR or your CMS and not the profiles. But, this is just a guess. Once you discover that LR's softproof is bad for any profile you load then I think a reinstall of LM is the first order of troubleshooting.

Hopefully some other well experienced user will pickup on this. There are several on this forumn.

 

[RogerR]

It's not LR's profile. It's the Canon printer driver's "Preview" (pops up when Preview before Printing" is selected in the Printer Properties boxes). So I think LR is off the hook.

 

[Tudor]

I'm not experienced, but... here goes:
It's normal to get a "out of wack" preview in Canon's driver Preview if you use a profile in LR (or other software that can use profiles). The software modifies the picture, sends it to Canon's driver and when you hit "Print" you get a "closer to reality" output (if you use the right profile).

Plus, my print looks very much like the picture displayed in LightRoom (i.e., the print matches the appearances of what I was editing). It's only the "print preview" screen that's out of wack.

I only use the driver Preview to make sure I got the correct paper size, orientation, picture size, etc before I hit "Print". The colors should be "out of wack" if you use a custom profile.

 

[Emulator]

I agree with Tudor, the Canon driver preview should be disregarded. Try some of the profiles here, these are for IS inks but may give you some ideas. Use Relative Colorimetric intent.
http://www.printerknowledge.com/threads/great-pro-100-profiles.8352/

 

[The Hat]

I’ll put my oar in here also and say you shouldn’t be using the print (Canon) driver Preview because it has a tendency to mess up not just the preview but also the beautiful photo you’re trying to print.

If there’s a need to use a preview to make sure you got everything just right then I’d suggest you use the preview in the application software itself because it’s usually far better and it also doesn’t alter or upset your final output.

 

[Tudor]

I’ll put my oar in here also and say you shouldn’t be using the print (Canon) driver Preview because it has a tendency to mess up not just the preview but also the beautiful photo you’re trying to print.

What, exactly, is the driver preview messing with? I didn't notice anything messed up by it.