Underwhelmed By Pro-100

[opurora]

Hi, this monitor comes pre-calibrated to 99% AdobeRGB or 100% sRGB and it comes with it's own .icm file.

My friend moved to the east coast. He set up my machine with my previous monitor but it was so long ago I don't remember the exact settings he used to set the color space within Windows 7.

Basically I am wanting to set up my workflow to be completely in AdobeRGB. I can easily set the display itself to AdobeRGB but there are many settings within Win7's color management dialog boxes that are confusing to me. It'd be great if there was an article on the internet that showed you how to setup your workflow in an easy to understand manner.

 

[Methodical]

OP don't know if this helps or not, but I pulled up windows color management just to see what the settings were for windows and here is what they are (see below). Note: the checkbox "use this setting for my device" - my calibration. Maybe you will have something similar for your setup base on your printer. Have you tried the "calibrate display" tab in the color management advance section? I think windows is only sRGB.

 

[opurora]

Update. I bought a new printhead for my Pro9000II. Magenta problem solved.

I followed these three guides and now I get prints that are incredibly close to my display with my 9000II.

http://www.slagermanphoto.com/blog/2010/09/22/windows-color-management-solution/
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/inkjet_debunk.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=80443.0 (post #4 from top of page)

The first evaluation print I did was so close to my monitor I almost fell out of my chair. [Pixl Testimage 2009 AdobeRGB A4]

Now, back to my Pro-100. I still find the prints a little dark. I guess I can work with that by increasing the brightness. I also get a subtle brownish tinge to my prints. I'm not sure how to remedy that.

I will say that some black & white images come out quite excellent on the Pro-100.

 

[Rob McAleavy]

To be clear, If your not using a COMPLETELY color managed work flow from monitor to printer you will not get consistent results. That being said after making identical profiles using Xrite's i1Profiler and comparing the two profiles, one within the the other, the Pro 9000 Mark II easily has a 20% larger color space. Specifically this means that blacks are blacker, due to the smaller 9000 dot size the printing is smoother & text is more crisp and sharp, and overall contrast is noticeably greater with the 9000II. Among other test results, the 9000II also proved to be more than 35% faster in high-res printing than the Pro-100. Finally, default Pro-100 profiles tend to have a red cast to them, as well as the darkest black being noticeably red and lighter than the black for the 9000II. The ONLY pro I can come up with for the Pro-100 is slightly more neutral B&W's on the faster less hi-fi print settings. A good and accurate profile using hi-res printing with the Pro9000 Mark II yields a noticeably richer print and quite neutral. Whether the greater 9000 contrast is due to a darker black or the red and green being added is somewhat moot. In the end Canon has taken a shortcut to neutrality with the added two blacks, but hobbled the printer in every other way. Like you, I'm also not impressed with this machine, and disappointed in the online reviews from reputable sources that do no actual profile comparisons and simply repeat Canon's sales pitch. Canon itself has no data on the comparative color-spaces of the two machines, probably because it would be embarrassing.

 

[opurora]

Thanks for your comments Mr. McAleavy. My workflow now is completely managed. I've been very busy lately and haven't had much time to experiment with my Pro-100. I did however print up Riwo.dot's Colortest II page using not Canon's Luster profile but Precision Color's profile instead. Someone mentioned they thought Canon's profiles were conservative and I'm certainly not satisfied with their reds or blues. I also turned up the brightness +10 in Photoshop and the print that was produced is much more pleasing to my eye and much closer to what is displayed on my monitor. It's still a little dark though, next time I'll try a brightness of +15.

I wonder if Canon's quality control for this printer is lacking? Like you I've read nothing but positive reviews. I wonder if we both got two duds that are slightly off? Some have written they experience no difference between the two printers. In fact some say the Pro-100 rivals the 9000II. This has not been my experience, except with black & white images and unfortunately I shoot almost no b&w.

I wanted to slowly transition from my 9000II to my Pro-100. But the Pro-100 cannot print my own images that I've sold in the past exactly or close enough to my satisfaction. When I installed the new printhead for my 9000II I immediately printed up one of my client's favorite images. Boom! Completely accurate the first time. The Pro-100 struggles with this particular image, it looks sickly and uninteresting.

My Pro-100 is still under warranty. If I continue to have these problems I'll contact Canon and try to get them to send me another one. I'm sure the first thing they'll ask is if I've upgraded to the latest firmware which I have not done since I plan to refill.

 

[Smile]

The largest color space for canon dye printers is from BCI-6 8ink color pixma ip8500.
Comparison made with canon own ICC profiles that are instilled with printer.

Then again the Pro-1 is largest, but it has so many inks it is to be expected.

I should note this is from canon profiles, if you use third party ink this can change and suddenly your "many print carts" prints as bad as any 4ink printer. Quality ink is required.

 

[Methodical]

To be clear, If your not using a COMPLETELY color managed work flow from monitor to printer you will not get consistent results. That being said after making identical profiles using Xrite's i1Profiler and comparing the two profiles, one within the the other, the Pro 9000 Mark II easily has a 20% larger color space. Specifically this means that blacks are blacker, due to the smaller 9000 dot size the printing is smoother & text is more crisp and sharp, and overall contrast is noticeably greater with the 9000II. Among other test results, the 9000II also proved to be more than 35% faster in high-res printing than the Pro-100. Finally, default Pro-100 profiles tend to have a red cast to them, as well as the darkest black being noticeably red and lighter than the black for the 9000II. The ONLY pro I can come up with for the Pro-100 is slightly more neutral B&W's on the faster less hi-fi print settings. A good and accurate profile using hi-res printing with the Pro9000 Mark II yields a noticeably richer print and quite neutral. Whether the greater 9000 contrast is due to a darker black or the red and green being added is somewhat moot. In the end Canon has taken a shortcut to neutrality with the added two blacks, but hobbled the printer in every other way. Like you, I'm also not impressed with this machine, and disappointed in the online reviews from reputable sources that do no actual profile comparisons and simply repeat Canon's sales pitch. Canon itself has no data on the comparative color-spaces of the two machines, probably because it would be embarrassing.

Thanks for your comments Mr. McAleavy. My workflow now is completely managed. I've been very busy lately and haven't had much time to experiment with my Pro-100. I did however print up Riwo.dot's Colortest II page using not Canon's Luster profile but Precision Color's profile instead. Someone mentioned they thought Canon's profiles were conservative and I'm certainly not satisfied with their reds or blues. I also turned up the brightness +10 in Photoshop and the print that was produced is much more pleasing to my eye and much closer to what is displayed on my monitor. It's still a little dark though, next time I'll try a brightness of +15.

I wonder if Canon's quality control for this printer is lacking? Like you I've read nothing but positive reviews. I wonder if we both got two duds that are slightly off? Some have written they experience no difference between the two printers. In fact some say the Pro-100 rivals the 9000II. This has not been my experience, except with black & white images and unfortunately I shoot almost no b&w.

I wanted to slowly transition from my 9000II to my Pro-100. But the Pro-100 cannot print my own images that I've sold in the past exactly or close enough to my satisfaction. When I installed the new printhead for my 9000II I immediately printed up one of my client's favorite images. Boom! Completely accurate the first time. The Pro-100 struggles with this particular image, it looks sickly and uninteresting.

My Pro-100 is still under warranty. If I continue to have these problems I'll contact Canon and try to get them to send me another one. I'm sure the first thing they'll ask is if I've upgraded to the latest firmware which I have not done since I plan to refill.

I, again, think it's your firmware. I provided a link earlier in the thread where they talk about problems with a certain firmware and Canon came of out with new firmware that fixed the problem.

 

[peter D]

@FalconST
"When I first received the Pro-100 last year, I also thought the printer wasn't as good as the Pro9000, however, after some experimenting and proper setup, things have gotten much better. It is important to use the XPS driver with the Pro-100, 16-bit vs the 8bit driver makes a world of difference. I use Lightroom 5 and set the images for printing using perceptual, the resolution is left "unchecked" (provides native printer resolution), and always use an ICC profile matched to the paper with Lightroom controlling the printer. It is also very important to keep the Canon printer driver set to Matching None."

Please could you advise what OS you are using?
Are you using a Mac for example?
My apologies in advance if you have already disclosed this information in an earlier post.

 

[finepics]

Not wishing to stir the pot but all I can say is that I've had the Pro100 for a year now, I print for my self and for members of my camera club, and have nothing but praise for it! Admittedly I've not owned a 9000 but what I print is what I see with no casts, dark prints, warmth or any other issues. I am fully colour managed with i1Pro2 and basICColor software and even use Canons own Print Studio Pro software to print with.

The Asus monitor you have is one of the cheapest wide gamut monitors available capable of displaying AdobeRGB (and one that I'm considering pairing with a MAC mini when my iMAC needs upgrading) and whilst it comes factory calibrated with it's own ICM/ICC file that's not to say that it doesn't need calibrating in future. Monthly is a normal schedule. To set the profile use the first window that Methodical shows in his post, select to highlight the appropriate ICM/ICC from the list of "Profiles associated wit this device" and click to set as default.

 

[opurora]

The Pro100 is a fine printer. Especially if you have good profiles. Precision Colors has some new one that are great. However, I have about a dozen photos that I sell and I know them intimately. The Pro9000 II can achieve subtleties with its green and red inks that the Pro 100 cannot. I can print magical photos with the Pro9000 II and my clients love them. But I've noticed with some subjects that if you print something first on the Pro 100 and never compare it to one done on the 9000 you'll be satisfied.