And furthermore... (was Re: Recommendations?)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lil' Abner
  • Start date Start date
If I haven't bored everybody to death yet (even the AOL-er who types in all
caps), I am still trying to make myself like this iP4200.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. Canon by default is too punchy, as in warm cool
colors and cool warm colors. I still have yet to figure out all the
aspects of the canon color management system. I've been told the
ip5000 by default is less vidid but I don't know this for a fact. But
I agree, your canon image is adding a blush. Your canon grass looks
thissle, your HP grass looks like you watered it last week.

Photoshop has the ability to print using it's own pallet rather than
letting the printer select it's own colors. Most of the things i've
been printing haven't required accuracy but i've found that simply
selecting "let photo shop determine the colors" from the print preview
menu tends to help with this color madness.

Also, you should e-mail canon and ask them for tips regarding
photoshop, color management, and such. As well as kodak paper
profiles. if you plan to continue using Kodak that is.
 
Lil' Abner said:
If I haven't bored everybody to death yet (even the AOL-er who types in
all
caps), I am still trying to make myself like this iP4200.
http://mewnlite.com/printers/part2.html
Click to expand...

Interesting actually.

I just did an experiment. I downloaded the "original" picture and printed it
out on my ip6600D Canon. No changes, no manipulation at all. The colors seem
to be about the same as your Canon. Given the size of the file, I did not
expect the same visual quality but it was OK. Seems as thought here is a
definite color bias if my experiment has valid methodology.
 
Interesting actually.

I just did an experiment. I downloaded the "original" picture and
printed it out on my ip6600D Canon. No changes, no manipulation at
all. The colors seem to be about the same as your Canon. Given the
size of the file, I did not expect the same visual quality but it was
OK. Seems as thought here is a definite color bias if my experiment
has valid methodology.
Click to expand...

I just changed that original one... if you click on it you'll get a larger
image to print from. I'm still playing, but I don't seem to be gaining.
Feel free to add comments in the little forum I set up.
 
Lil' Abner said:
I just changed that original one... if you click on it you'll get a larger
image to print from. I'm still playing, but I don't seem to be gaining.
Feel free to add comments in the little forum I set up.
Click to expand...

I just did a reprint. With no changes to the image, it was still to
magenta. With a change in the color balance removing some read, the hair is
getting better.

I also printed a photo that I took about a year ago. I was horrified to see
so much magenta and the un-natural reddish cast. Going back to the editor,
I found that on screen it was not as pure a white as it should have been.
Removing some red, it is no true to real color and the white is white, not
pinkish cast. I'm happy again. I have to be more careful in my editing as
the problem was self inflicted. It is also possible that on my old monitor
it looked OK at the time.


If you'd like, I'll send the prints I made of your photo to you for
comparison. My email works, just send me your snail mail address and they
are yours.
 
Back
Top