Discussion in 'Digital Image Editing & Printing' started by gray1720, Mar 29, 2020.
Thanks for that.
It always surprises me when people manage their whole workflow in photoshop and then hand over colour management to the printer at the final stage. The only exception I make is for B&W when using ABW with Epson. The most common cause of pink or blue tints is double profiling.
I have been using the iP7250 for B+W at home and quite often get a magenta colour cast too. Some stuff comes out perfect though which is strange and really is starting to bug me!!!
Even when set to use black ink only it can have that horrible tinge to it, I'm starting to think that it must be the paper? Colour prints are usually ok, although they aren't coming out quite as warm or vibrant as I see on my screen (I've not yet learned how to set up/calibrate monitor). Still more than acceptable though, even when using either Jarbo or office world inks that cost around £20 for four full sets of five cartridges. For the amount of photo printing I do I can't justify the price of Canon ink
Paper does make a difference.
Prints will never look as vibrant as a screen. They are best viewed under bright daylight, worse viewed under weak artificial light.
Calibrating a monitor is straightforward, just have to pay your money. Calibrating your printer is a more involved process, even if you send off for a custom ICC profile. If the printer is common enough the paper manufacturers will offer a profile for their paper and the printer OEM inks.
I’ve only once bought non OEM ink, when the OEM was out of stock. Awful results - damn stuff runs and smudges and misprints everywhere. That’s office printing not photo printing.
I've not had a problem with cheap inks for a few years now, when they first came about they were horrible things and a waste of money but nowadays I rarely have a problem. I've only recently started making my own prints at home so I'm still very much in the dabbling/experimenting stage. Think I might try out some decent paper, all I had lying about was cheap tesco glossy paper
Man I miss my old darkroom so much
Inkjet printing isn't the same magic as watching a print appear in the developing tray. However, my old darkroom was the cupboard under the stairs (complete with everything that goes into the cupboard under the stairs) where it was a battle to avoid asphyxiation, so the "lightroom" is much more pleasant.
I use Permajet papers now. I used to use Ilford.
I think my main problem is that is a medium duty HP duplex printer aimed at the small office. It prints quickly and, because of the duplex action, each page does a double pass through the rollers. The third party ink doesn't dry fast enough. It would probably be fine on a once-through printer.
I was lucky, I had a 3 x 5mtr room buit in my in-laws garage, fully insulated, lined and temperature controlled with extraction, seperate dry and wet sides and a nice space for hanging negs and prints. Then they got divorced and I got kicked out! I was set up for a while in the old house but when we moved I wasn't allowed my smelly darkroom in the new place.
I'll have a look at some better papers in the future but I'll wait until I get to grips with PS and calibrating the monitor as best I can
Seconded for Permajet, especially Lustre 310. Lovely stuff.
Should note that 310 g/m2 might need a front-load capability on the printer (straight paper path) and not go through a standard top feed. I've not tried top-feeding a paper that weight.
Pete - I suspect the answer is "Don't".
OK - too late to change my post - so second best
Should note that 310 g/m2 WILL need a front-load capability on the printer (straight paper path) and WILL NOT go through a standard top feed.
I've got a Canon Pro-100 that I got for literally nothing about 6 years ago. In those days Canon was perpetually running a promotion here in the states, where if you bought a pack of paper with the printer, you got virtually the entire purchase price of the printer back as a rebate.
I've converted it to user filed ink tanks and it's going strong for a total of well under $200.
Late to this thread, spend too much time in the Lounge.
Currently run an Epson R2400 but an thinking of something new, especially after reading Brian's post.
I've been looking at papers including Permajet Royal Gloss and Brilliant Museum, coming back to Harman Gloss FB AL.
Mostly printing my Astro photos, so colour balance can be odd.
I have just changed my printer from a Canon Pro10s and thank goodness. It was just over a year old, just out of guarantee and it went belly up. It has never been satisfactory at all with increased ink blockages and three day ago it just stopped working. Apart from that the case seemed flimsy and not well put together.
I have replaced it with an Epson P700. Very expensive I know, but the Canon was the only deviation from Epson I have had in over 20 years and won't go back to THAT make. It is up and running nicely and the quality straight out of the box was so good my screen didn't even need re-calibrating.
The running costs won't be much different either because the much larger cartridges are very nearly twice the capacity of the Canon ones but the price of two of them is far more than the Epson.
Apart from that it is lighter and smaller, so I now have room to work on the table alongside.
If you can get the ICC profile for your printer and I suspect it should be available, the Brilliant Museum paper is quite good. If anyone uses matt art paper, I can recommend Fotospeed Platinum Etching.
I have profiles for Brilliant Museum for my ancient printer, and it is indeed quite good, but the Harman (Now by Hahnemuhle) has a surface finish very similar to the classic "Glossy unglazed" silver gelatin paper I used to use. I have profiles for the Harman paper too. Couldn't find any profiles for the Permajet Royal Gloss so used my ColorMunki to create one.
There are five printers in my house, but using them is another matter, only the Brother Laser printer gets regular use. There is an Epson ET2600 that I can use from my phone or iPad which is good and cheap to run, then a Stylus Photo 1400 A3 printer and a Stylus Photo R800 neither of which sees much use. Finally there is a HP Laserjet (Parallel port) printer that acts as a shelf.
I have an el-cheapo (apart from the inks!) Epson XP-255.
Works fine and even produces acceptable photos on Epson paper. Even with non-Epson ink, though it does complain I'm not using the 'proper' inks occasionally.
I have a cheap Canon MG 3050 'all in one' which I mostly use as a photocopier, and a wireless HP mono M102w LaserJet for office stuff. My photo printer is an inexpensive Epson Stylus Photo 1500 A3 job, which, when fed with Epson inks and papers, produces excellent A3+ full-bleed prints - although only when connected via USB. When connected via Wi-Fi, you loose the full-bleed, and the quality seems a fraction down on the full monte.
My approach to printing is somewhat unusual - I am told! Firstly, I strictly stick to using the manufacturers consumables, and always let the printer handle the colour profile. Every time I print, I take a long, hard look at the print preview window. "But it looks nothing like the finished print" I hear you scream. No it doesn't - but the differences are always consistent. For instance, in my case the preview is shown as being desaturated from the final print, so if it is normally saturated, the print will be over saturated. Go back and fix. Another thing - I always print from Photoshop, again to get consistency. I do most of my post-processing in Capture One, but still print from PS. A side benefit of this approach is that as long as you have a well calibrated screen, you do not need to calibrate the printer.
The point of this master class boring monologue is that even a cheap printer can produce excellent prints, if managed properly and consistently. Here endeth the first lesson, now we shall sing hymn ...
Separate names with a comma.