i9900 Red Skin Tones

  • Thread starter Thread starter Some Computer
  • Start date Start date
S

Some Computer

Hi All.
I have a great digital photo of a family member. I printed it on my i9900,
using oem ink and the like, and thought it looked good. However, after
printing it also at the one hour place, I notice the one I printed on the
i9900 has way too much red in the skin tones. Has anyone else experienced
this? I printed it using the Canon Easy Print software. Maybe I would have
better luck using the pict bridge and print directly from the camera?
 
One note... I was using HP Phot Glossy Paper. Maybe that is the problem,
perhaps it really does do best on Canon paper.
 
Some said:
One note... I was using HP Phot Glossy Paper. Maybe that is the problem,
perhaps it really does do best on Canon paper.
Click to expand...

It will also do 98% as well when using Costco/Kirkland paper.
 
Some said:
Hi All.
I have a great digital photo of a family member. I printed it on my i9900,
using oem ink and the like, and thought it looked good. However, after
printing it also at the one hour place, I notice the one I printed on the
i9900 has way too much red in the skin tones. Has anyone else experienced
this? I printed it using the Canon Easy Print software. Maybe I would have
better luck using the pict bridge and print directly from the camera?
Click to expand...
Your photo lab has probably adjusted the colour of the print.
How does the colour look on screen compared to your print?
You should at a minimum profile your monitor using Adobe Gamma, or if
you don't have PS, then one of the free downloads that you will find if
you google for it. Then at least you will get a rough idea of how your
print might look. You can go much further than that with profiling to
get colour accuracy, but it's much better than nothing.
The IP9950 (same as 9900 - but with CD printing) that I have looked at
actually seemed by default a bit blue in skin tone, and the iP4000 a bit
red.
If you didn't alter the colour using the software on your PC, then
printing direct from your camera probably wouldn't improve matters.
You will have a white balance and probably saturation settings on your
camera, and changing program modes (portrait/macro/landscape etc) will
change the colour balance and saturation of the images.
 
Some Computer wrote:
Click to expand...
The IP9950 (same as 9900 - but with CD printing) that I have looked at
actually seemed by default a bit blue in skin tone, and the iP4000 a bit
red.
Click to expand...

That's the issue I've had with my i9900 - a blue tint. I've never had
it come out tinted towards red with the stock ink and control files.

The excessive blue tint comes from the photo cyan cartridge. I noticed
that with a Weink photo cyan cartridge in place, the blue tinting goes
away..
 
You have an i9900 and go to a one hour photo shop for prints?????!!!!!!!!!!
Why do you have a printer like this and not bother to learn to use it?
I am constantly astounded by people who buy things that they never intend to
learn how to use.
To see what this printer is capable of you have to learn color management
and the rudiments of image processing in a color managed program like Adobe
Photoshop or Elements.
You need to learn the Canon version of color management and then the real
version.
If you want decent results you will have to calibrate your monitor with an
external device.
In truth, if you learn what you are doing, you will have to calibrate the
printer when you realize how rotten Canon's version of color management is.
If this sounds like too much I strongly advise you to sell your printer on
Ebay and stick to the one hour photo shop.
You will not regret the decision.
 
It is not that I do not intend to learn how to use it. To answer your
question, I had a slew of free prints to burn up. To my astonishment, the
photo lab, which just churns them through without making any adjustments,
looks much better than the Canon i9900. The photo is taken with a 20D. Great
camera. Anyway, I tried to print also directly from the camera to rule out
any stupid windows driver/software issues as possible. It came out better.
Not up to par with the quick lab, but a little better than printing it with
the supplied Easy Photo software that came with the printer and the camera.
I would have expected since all products were from Canon (printer, ink,
camera, paper as well this last time) the quality would have been better.

I will use the Canon i9900 for what I purchased it for, which is not for
photographs. I don't think you can beat the photo labs.... Cheap and great
prints.
 
The more I read and try Canon products first hand, the more I realize they
are all overpriced garbage. Totally useless.
 
measekite said:
Jerking Off like you stupid.
Click to expand...
Sorry but I don't even know what a i9900. I'm so dumb I can't even print
with this ip4000 my mom bought me.
Stupid huh?
measekite
 
Some said:
The more I read and try Canon products first hand, the more I realize they
are all overpriced garbage. Totally useless.
Click to expand...
<-------------------------------------------------------------------->

I agree, canons are a real piece of shit. I can't figure out how to
print one page of black type with the ip4000 my mom bought me.
I'm just a stupid jerkoff I guess and this canon is garbage.
measekite
 
Some said:
Hi All.
I have a great digital photo of a family member. I printed it on my i9900,
using oem ink and the like, and thought it looked good. However, after
printing it also at the one hour place, I notice the one I printed on the
i9900 has way too much red in the skin tones. Has anyone else experienced
this? I printed it using the Canon Easy Print software. Maybe I would have
better luck using the pict bridge and print directly from the camera?
Click to expand...

I have a different story. I use 3rd party ink on my ip8500. I found Canon OEM's
red is a little more orange than my 3rd party ink. What I printed for comparison
was a color pattern of 8 stripes of BK, C, M, Y, G, R, PC and PM produced by
using Photoshop. I showed the prints to friends and everyone agreed that Canon's
red is a little orange while the 3rd party ink is indeed "RED". Paper used was
Costco's Kirkland brand swiss made glossy paper. Did not try to print on any
Canon paper. So this might have been a case of paper caused difference. May need
custom profile to produce identical colors.
 
Some said:
One note... I was using HP Phot Glossy Paper. Maybe that is the problem,
perhaps it really does do best on Canon paper.
Click to expand...

It may be indeed the cause of the color difference. It does not mean HP paper
being bad in quality. It is just a different paper that needs a custom ICC profile
to reproduce colors correctly. Canon paper is good only for one reason, being resin
coated. It produces good colors only because it uses a profile specifically made for
it.
 
Jim said:
That's the issue I've had with my i9900 - a blue tint. I've never had
it come out tinted towards red with the stock ink and control files.

The excessive blue tint comes from the photo cyan cartridge. I noticed
that with a Weink photo cyan cartridge in place, the blue tinting goes
away..
Click to expand...

Talking about weink inks. I bought a set of 6 colors of ink for my i960
more than a year ago. The blue color was clearly not as blue as Canon OEM's
blue. I wrote weink support about it and never got any replies. I no longer
use weink any more. The ink was RC-52 ink.
 
Some said:
The more I read and try Canon products first hand, the more I realize they
are all overpriced garbage. Totally useless.
Click to expand...

Absolutely wrong. My ip8500 at $350 is worth every dollar I paid. You may
argue that it is over priced. But it is not totally useless.
 
Some Computer said:
Hi All.
I have a great digital photo of a family member. I printed it on my
i9900,
using oem ink and the like, and thought it looked good. However, after
printing it also at the one hour place, I notice the one I printed on the
i9900 has way too much red in the skin tones. Has anyone else experienced
this? I printed it using the Canon Easy Print software. Maybe I would have
better luck using the pict bridge and print directly from the camera?
Click to expand...
Hi group.

He may be a bit thick in buying a photo printer which he never intended to
use for printing photos.

At least he seems to be using his camera to take photos, but in the long
term, he may have plans to use it for something other than taking photos.

It certainly takes all types to make this world go round, but why do so many
of them ask stupid questions on this group.

Roy G
 
Back
Top