Overall reddish prints

You guys are hitting your heads against the wall. Copy your pictures on a CD
and take them to a friends house that has a HP printer and you will find
your color problem will be solved. Pete
"CWatters" wrote in message
news

"Satoshi" wrote in message
...
I am printing outdoor pictures on Canon i950 using Canon Glossy Photo
Paper.
On screen, pictures were sharp and great. When printed, pictures were
reddish overall.

Find a test image off the web and use that to work out if the problem is
with your monitor calibration or the printer.

Satoshi - The two light dye load inks, photo magenta and photo cyan, are
used up faster than the other inks under normal circumstances when printing
most photos. I have a Canon i960 and especially with pictures that have
people with skin tones that are more red than average I either adjust the
overall intensity to -4 or -6, or I adjust the magenta to a minus value that
gives the best print. I have seen one post that suggested -7 setting for
Magenta. Do not use the two higher quality paper settings - stay with the
glossy photo paper setting as you described. Print all pictures in manual
color setting. I found that the automatic setting came up very red. You
may or may not have to adjust the intensity or magenta as described above.
I use photoshop elements 2 and calibrated my monitor with the adobe gamma
program. When I first bought the printer I played with various settings and
papers to get the best color balance to my eye. When I started using
non-OEM inks I redid my tests and found that the test prints were comparable
to the OEM inks with every combination of settings and papers. I presently
use Costco Kirkland glossy photo paper with an aftermarket ink and the
settings I described above. Someone else answered your post with the
suggestion that you may have more than one software program trying to adjust
your colors. If the settings I suggested don't help[ then that may be your
problem.

"Satoshi" wrote in message
...
I am printing outdoor pictures on Canon i950 using Canon Glossy Photo
Paper. On screen, pictures were sharp and great. When printed, pictures
were reddish overall. Black stuff came out purple on prints. (All
pictures were taken with Sony 5 MP digicam.). I don't see any problem
with camera and screen color.

Using Photoshop, I tried to change the color balance: I changed color
level from red to cyan ( to the level of cyan -60). Printed pictures
were still reddish, though less reddish this time. I am wondering what
is the problem? Should I change magenta ink cartridge or print head?
Need your help. Satoshi

The difference must be in the driver since ng readers claim that the ink
and the printhead is the same.

Ron Cohen wrote:

OEM ink has nothing to do with this discussion. The i950 has a problem with
a red tint regardless of the ink or paper sources. I've seen this problem
with Canon ink as well as 3rd party. That's one of the reasons I prefer my
iP4000 over my i950.

Why not go to a progessional photo lab.

Pete wrote:

You guys are hitting your heads against the wall. Copy your pictures on a CD
and take them to a friends house that has a HP printer and you will find
your color problem will be solved. Pete
"CWatters" wrote in message
news

"Satoshi" wrote in message
...


I am printing outdoor pictures on Canon i950 using Canon Glossy Photo


Paper.


On screen, pictures were sharp and great. When printed, pictures were
reddish overall.


Find a test image off the web and use that to work out if the problem is
with your monitor calibration or the printer.

Burt wrote:

Satoshi - The two light dye load inks, photo magenta and photo cyan, are
used up faster than the other inks under normal circumstances when printing
most photos. I have a Canon i960 and especially with pictures that have
people with skin tones that are more red than average I either adjust the
overall intensity to -4 or -6, or I adjust the magenta to a minus value that
gives the best print. I have seen one post that suggested -7 setting for
Magenta. Do not use the two higher quality paper settings - stay with the
glossy photo paper setting as you described. Print all pictures in manual
color setting. I found that the automatic setting came up very red. You
may or may not have to adjust the intensity or magenta as described above.
I use photoshop elements 2 and calibrated my monitor with the adobe gamma
program. When I first bought the printer I played with various settings and
papers to get the best color balance to my eye. When I started using
non-OEM inks I redid my tests and found that the test prints were comparable
to the OEM inks with every combination of settings and papers.


I guess the word comparable does not mean nearly exact.

I presently
use Costco Kirkland glossy photo paper with an :-( aftermarket :-( ink and the
settings I described above. Someone else answered your post with the
suggestion that you may have more than one software program trying to adjust
your colors. If the settings I suggested don't help[ then that may be your
problem.

"Satoshi" wrote in message
...


I am printing outdoor pictures on Canon i950 using Canon Glossy Photo
Paper. On screen, pictures were sharp and great. When printed, pictures
were reddish overall. Black stuff came out purple on prints. (All
pictures were taken with Sony 5 MP digicam.). I don't see any problem
with camera and screen color.

Using Photoshop, I tried to change the color balance: I changed color
level from red to cyan ( to the level of cyan -60). Printed pictures
were still reddish, though less reddish this time. I am wondering what
is the problem? Should I change magenta ink cartridge or print head?
Need your help. Satoshi

"Satoshi" wrote in message
...
I am printing outdoor pictures on Canon i950 using Canon Glossy Photo
Paper. On screen, pictures were sharp and great. When printed,
pictures were reddish overall. Black stuff came out purple on
prints. (All pictures were taken with Sony 5 MP digicam.). I
don't see any problem with camera and screen color.

Using Photoshop, I tried to change the color balance: I changed
color level from red to cyan ( to the level of cyan -60). Printed
pictures were still reddish, though less reddish this time. I am
wondering what is the problem? Should I change magenta ink
cartridge or print head? Need your help. Satoshi

For sure you are not double-profiling? There are at least two ways to
properly print:

- In PS Print Preview: set Print Space to Printer Color Management.
Then in the printer driver, enable ICM.

- In PS Print Preview: set Print Space to use a paper profile, then
in the printer driver disable ICM and make sure you use the same paper
as the paper profile.

However, I think I remember someone posting similar problems with
their i950 and so they then got a i9900 which printed fine. BUT, I
also remember at least one post about their i9900 prints being off -
Canon support determined it was a bad printer and indeed the
replacement was fine. So, there could be

"measekite" wrote in message
...


Burt wrote:

Satoshi - The two light dye load inks, photo magenta and photo cyan, are
used up faster than the other inks under normal circumstances when
printing most photos. I have a Canon i960 and especially with pictures
that have people with skin tones that are more red than average I either
adjust the overall intensity to -4 or -6, or I adjust the magenta to a
minus value that gives the best print. I have seen one post that
suggested -7 setting for Magenta. Do not use the two higher quality paper
settings - stay with the glossy photo paper setting as you described.
Print all pictures in manual color setting. I found that the automatic
setting came up very red. You may or may not have to adjust the intensity
or magenta as described above. I use photoshop elements 2 and calibrated
my monitor with the adobe gamma program. When I first bought the printer
I played with various settings and papers to get the best color balance to
my eye. When I started using non-OEM inks I redid my tests and found that
the test prints were comparable to the OEM inks with every combination of
settings and papers.

I guess the word comparable does not mean nearly exact.

Nearly exact is an oxymoron. Exact is exact. To state that they are
exactly the same would have required evaluation with extremely sophisticated
equipment. I use the word comparable because to the naked eye (I can't wait
to see how Measekite twists this phrase) the photos I have printed with OEM
and with MIS inks both look the same, absent close scientific evaluation.
One or another of the areas may look very slightly more or less saturated or
very slightly more or less yellow, magenta, or cyan, but the key word here
is that the differences are so slight as to beg a closer evaluation. I am
not concerned if the OEM and MIS inks are or are not EXACTLY the same. Both
make extremely pleasing prints that reflect, as well as can be expected
without sophisticated customizing of the color profiles of monitor, printer,
camera, and paper/ink combinations, the colors of the original scenes. It is
apparent that Canon's profiles need a little adjustment with some of their
printers, but, in their "wisdom" they made a manual setting with adjustment
capability.

For those of us who were involved with color photography before the era of
point and shoot automatic cameras and the overwhelming use of Kodak 100,
200, or 400 negative film, we are acutely aware of the leaning of certain
films to the blue spectrum, others with oversaturated colors, etc. The
original 10 ASA Kodachrome slide material produced beautiful, albeit
oversaturated color slides. The first Ektachrome 25 ASA slide material had
a not so subtle shift to blues. We bought Pro packs of color negative film
(20 rolls, as I recall) and shot test prints of a known color chart to zero
in on that particular batch of film's characteristics before using it in the
field. The other 19 rolls were then stored in the refrigerator until used
as there could be color shifts with less-than-ideal storage conditions. I
mention all of this to reflect on Measekite's criticism that I did not say
the ink color matches were EXACT. Nothing in photograpy is EXACT, and
everything has to be tested and calibrated, even the most highly rated
professional negative film. Users of any ink, even OEM inks, must know that
different batches will almost never be EXACT, but they will, hopefully, be
pretty damned close. In other words, close enough that there is no
difference to the naked eye. I think this is where I started. Can we stop
beating this one to death?

I presently use Costco Kirkland glossy photo paper with an :-(
aftermarket :-( ink and the settings I described above. Someone else
answered your post with the suggestion that you may have more than one
software program trying to adjust your colors. If the settings I
suggested don't help[ then that may be your problem.

"Satoshi" wrote in message
...

I am printing outdoor pictures on Canon i950 using Canon Glossy Photo
Paper. On screen, pictures were sharp and great. When printed, pictures
were reddish overall. Black stuff came out purple on prints. (All
pictures were taken with Sony 5 MP digicam.). I don't see any problem
with camera and screen color.

Using Photoshop, I tried to change the color balance: I changed color
level from red to cyan ( to the level of cyan -60). Printed pictures
were still reddish, though less reddish this time. I am wondering what
is the problem? Should I change magenta ink cartridge or print head?
Need your help. Satoshi

To state that they are exactly the same would have required evaluation with extremely
sophisticated equipment.

Or a getto solution would be using a semi decent flat bed scanner
calibrated with a a decent color wheel or better still a color chart.
Sure it's not exact, esp taking into account it's harder to replace the
bulb with one you know is neutral than the olden days, but with enough
tweeking you can have a passable tool for color calibration and
something resembling quantitative color analysis. May not be perfect,
but at least a valuable tool to keep things consistant.

Burt wrote:

Nearly exact is an oxymoron. Exact is exact...

....Can we stop
beating this one to death?

I think you've just hammered the death knell. :-)
Frank

Actually, Zake, for me it is sufficient to "eyeball" it. As long as I like
the print I am a happy camper. I am doing it solely for my own enjoyment.
That is why the term "exact" becomes an abstract concept for my printing
needs. During my professional career I dealt in producing results to
fractions of millimeters. Even with that kind of precision I would be
reluctant to say the work was EXACT! As we all know, even the most precise
measuring device is only accurate to a prestated value + or _. When I comes
to color values with inkjet printers, you hit it on the head. Consistancy
is something to strive for, as perfection is elusive.

"zakezuke" wrote in message
oups.com...
To state that they are exactly the same would have required evaluation
with extremely
sophisticated equipment.

Or a getto solution would be using a semi decent flat bed scanner
calibrated with a a decent color wheel or better still a color chart.
Sure it's not exact, esp taking into account it's harder to replace the
bulb with one you know is neutral than the olden days, but with enough
tweeking you can have a passable tool for color calibration and
something resembling quantitative color analysis. May not be perfect,
but at least a valuable tool to keep things consistant.