10

I am looking for a new photo printer, something in the price range of Canon PIXMA Pro9000/9500 Mark II or Epson Stylus Photo 1400/R2880.

If I am using papers and colour profiles provided by the printer manufacturer, can I expect reasonably accurate and consistent colours without any colour calibration?

(Or, put otherwise, would I get clearly visible differences if I used a colour calibration system?)


I am currently using an old and cheap Canon PIXMA iP6000D, and the main problem is that the colours are inaccurate. Prints on a glossy paper have very different colours in comparison with prints on a matte paper (even though I am using Canon papers and the right colour profiles provided by Canon for this particular combination of paper and printer). Even worse, the results are not consistent: if I print the same photo twice in a row (using exactly the same settings), often the prints have noticeably different colours.

I would like to know if this kind of problems are "normal" and to be expected in any relatively cheap (< $1000) consumer-level printer, or if I would be better off by buying a now one.

Jukka Suomela
  • 2,511
  • 5
  • 30
  • 40
  • I assume that you are using a calibration system of some kind for your screen? Otherwise, it won't matter whether the printer is calbrated or not. – Staale S Jan 30 '11 at 19:22

2 Answers2

5

When printing with a custom ICC profile, you need to make sure that you disable color correction in the printer driver. By default, the printer performs color correction on its own, and Canon printers tend to oversaturate prints. If you print from Photoshop or Lightroom, make certain that before you actually print, you configure the printer driver correctly each time. Make absolutely certain that the color correction setting is set to "None", then manually select your ICC profile before printing.

That said, glossy papers have a higher dynamic range than matte papers, so images that have a lot of contrast between the brightest and darkest shades will usually have smoother tonal gradations on luster or glossy paper. Glossy, semi-glossy, satin, and luster papers can all cause gloss differential with ink jet printers, particularly with pigment based inks, but even so with dye based inks (like your iP6000D). Print color is based on reflected light and light wave absorption by inks (and to some degree, the paper substrate). There are several factors that affect the color and tone of light reflected by a paper. With glossy papers, particularly bright white glossy papers, there are often whitening and brightening agents included. Optical brighteners are usually most sensitive to UV light, so viewing a glossy and a matte print under indoor tungsten lighting will cause the color rendition to look different. Glossy papers with brighteners will look best when viewed in bright "natural" light, either produced by a bulb that outputs around 5000K with some UV component, or under actual sunlight.

The color of the paper substrate itself will also play a role in how colors look. Glossy papers often tend to be on the cooler side of white, although there are some brands (Moab, Hahnemuhle, etc.) that offer some "natural" white gloss and luster papers. Most matte papers have a more natural white than bright white (although again, high quality third party brands like Moab, Museo, Hahnemuhle, etc. have some bright white matte papers). Natural whites usually range from very warm to natural warm, and will change the look and feel of a print in comparison with bright white glossy or luster papers.

It is important to use the right paper for the job. Papers are by no means equal, and have more differences than just glossy or matte. The "temperature" of the paper itself, the purity of its white, the texture of the paper surface, the use or lack thereof of brighteners, the level and type of gloss, etc. all affect how a resulting print looks. Some things look superb on glossy paper, but lack depth and punch on matte. Some things have fantastic warmth and feeling on matte, but look unrealistic on gloss. You will need to experiment a bit to determine which of your photos look good on gloss, and which look good on matte. You might also want to try a few third-party papers, as they often have FAR more variety than Canon does. Most quality papers, like Hahanemuhle, offer their own custom ICC profiles that ensure correct color reproduction with Canon printers and their papers.

In my own experience, photo rag matte papers are FANTASTIC for landscape photos. They bring a warmth and texture that makes the best of expansive nature scenes. Luster papers, or soft gloss papers, bring out smoother tonal gradations and slightly more dynamic range for portraits. I generally try to avoid papers with optical brighteners, as their color reproduction changes depending on the light the print is viewed in. There are some quality bleached white papers from Museo that offer a middle or neutral white, brighter than the common natural white, that just makes the most stunning black and white prints. I highly recommend looking into Museo, Hahanemuhle, Moab, Ilford, and Breathing Color. Find the tones, weights, and textures that bring out the most in your prints.

As for the question about your particular printer being lower than par for professional prints, yes, it is. That particular printer model is a consumer grade photo printer that is designed more for your average home user who just wants to spit out 4x6 or 5x7 photos of their family, friends, and vacations, or the occasional word or business document. It is not designed as a professional grade photographic printer. The Canon PIXMA Pro 9000 II and 9500 II are Canon's professional grade home photographic printers. The 9000 is a dye based printer, and the 9500 is a pigment based printer. Both of those printers can produce VERY high quality prints up to 13x19" in size. The 9500 is comparable to Epson printers, although it is more tuned to saturated greens, blues, and reds (where as Epsons tend to cater towards more saturated oranges and magentas.) Unless you print a lot of prints with highly saturated magenta, a Canon 9500 or any one of the Canon imagePrograph printers that use Lucia or Lucia II pigment inks will produce the highest quality prints you can get from an ink jet printer these days.

jrista
  • 70,728
  • 15
  • 163
  • 313
3

In my experience, Epson's profiles are quite accurate, and the results quite repeatable. Canon printers seem to me to place a greater emphasis on speed than quality.

Edit: Canon only claims coverage of 90% of Pantone for Lucia EX inks. Epson Ultrachrome HDR covers 98% of Pantone (and not just "claims" but "is certified by Pantone.")

Attempting to claim either that Epson provides only about 90% coverage, or that Canon provides about 98% coverage are simply false. Canon has certainly improved in this regard over the past few years. Nonetheless, Epson is clearly still ahead in this category.

For those who care about print longevity, the story is similar. The newest Canon printers claim about 75 years, while the latest Epson printers claim around 200 years.

Simply put, while Canon's printers (and, perhaps more importantly, inks) have certainly become more competitive in the last few years, Epson's printers and inks remain measurably superior in a number of respects.

Jerry Coffin
  • 19,310
  • 1
  • 55
  • 87
  • 1
    This is entirely untrue. Canon printers produce very accurate prints when used properly, its just that they tend to try color-correcting in the driver itslef by default. Disabling printer ICM and using a custom ICC profile allows Canon printers to produce prints that are just as accurate as an Epson. – jrista Jan 30 '11 at 19:32
  • @jrista: That simply doesn't match my experience. For most people, getting nearly as accurate a profile simply isn't possible (I can't afford nearly as good a photospectrometer as Epson can). When using profiles provided by a high-end RIP vendor, Canons come a lot closer, but IME still come out inferior to Epsons. – Jerry Coffin Jan 30 '11 at 19:46
  • @Jerry Coffin: Canon, as well as the third-party paper manufacturers I use, all use high quality spectrophotometers to generate their color profiles. Outside of the few paper types I have not been able to find color profiles for, the color rendition and accuracy of a professionally created color profile with my Canon PIXMA Pro9500 is stellar, and when I compare prints side-by-side with Epson prints, the differences are minimal. The key differences are simply gamut, as Canon's gamut extends into areas of green and red more, while Epsons extend into deep magenta and orange more. – jrista Jan 30 '11 at 19:59
  • I think the argument that Epson print quality was better was true a number of years ago, before Canon started using pigment inks. Canon printers are into their second generation of Lucia pigment inks, and the differences in gamut, color reproduction quality, and archival longevity between Canon and Epson are slim to none these days. I think the primary differences really just boil down to ink colors used, which affects the gamut of the device. Regarding gloss differential, metamerism, bronzing, etc., Canon Lucia/LuciaII inks have progressed considerably, and solidly rival Ultrachrome K3. – jrista Jan 30 '11 at 20:04
  • Yes, if you compare Lucia II to Ultrachrome K3, it looks pretty solid. Unfortunately, that's competing with what Epson introduced ~5 years ago. They're still well behind Epson's current Ultrachrome HDR though. – Jerry Coffin Jan 30 '11 at 22:19
  • I would compare Lucia to Ultrachrome K3, and Lucia II to Ultrachrome HDR. Lucia has been around for around four years at least, if not longer, and Lucia II has been less than a year now (Mar 2010). Just like Ultrachrome HDR introduced a broader gamut that covered Adobe RGB and over 90% of Pantone, so did Lucia II introduce a broader gamut that also covered Adobe RGB and over 90% of Pantone. Just like Canon and Nikon regularly leapfrog each other, so do Canon and Epson. I think Epson's new Uchrome HDR + White offers a slightly broader gamut, but it won't be long until Canon competes again. – jrista Jan 30 '11 at 22:57
  • The argument that Epson is in some way fundamentally better or far beyond Canon is the argument that I dispute. It used to be true. Today, the technological differences have narrowed considerably, and I think the more heated, neck-to-neck competition between these two manufacturers is a GOOD thing that will only produce better printers and inks in the near future. I think a dogmatic adherence to the old adage that Epson is simply better is illogical, and largely based in subjective, personal opinion. Technologically, the gap is extremely narrow. – jrista Jan 30 '11 at 23:00
  • My apologies. I've been using "Lucia II" to refer to Canon's latest ink formulation, however I meant to use "Lucia EX". Its the Lucia EX ink, introduced March 2010, that competes with Ultrachrome HDR, and covers something like 90%+ of the Pantone Color Match gamut. It should be noted that only the newest Canon and Epson printers support these gamuts. The Epson 7900 and 9900 use Ultrachrome HDR, and the new Canon iPF 6300, 6350, and 8300 use Lucia EX. You need to shell out at least $2300 to benefit from these ultra wide print gamuts. :'( – jrista Jan 30 '11 at 23:08
  • Alright, if you want to get extremely specific. From Epson 4900 page: "•Certified by PANTONE® to cover 98% of the Formula Guide Solid Coated * // * When printing on Epson Proofing Paper White Semimatte with the standard Epson driver at 2,880 x 1,440 dpi. PANTONE coverage may vary when printed with a 3rd party RIP." Espon is only able to achieve 98% Pantone coverage with a SPECIFIC PAPER. Canon's specific terminology is "OVER 90% of Pantone", and they also state that it is only achievable on Canon papers with their driver at maximum DPI. – jrista Jan 31 '11 at 03:19
  • Additionally, being extremely specific about longevity. Epson claims that Ultrachrome HDR can last "Up to 200 years" for color, and "Over 200 years" for black and white...according to note C, only when displayed under glass (they don't specify glass kind, however I assume UV protective.) Wilhelm Research clocks Epson's latest ink on a variety of Epson papers at >200 to >300 years under ideal archival storage conditions. Ideal storage conditions are in dark storage, 73degF, and low humidity. Average lifetime under basic glass and normal light, humidity, and gas conditions is about 85-105 years. – jrista Jan 31 '11 at 03:28
  • Canon's Lucia EX ratings from Wilhelm Research clocked in at >200 years under archival storage for Canon Satin Photographic paper, and >300 years for Canon Fine Art Photo Rag Hahnemuhle paper. Both papers displayed under UV protective glass come in at >115 years and >125 years, respectively. Ideal storage conditions are the same as for Epson prints. Average lifetime under basic glass and normal light, humidity, and gas conditions is about 83-95 years. – jrista Jan 31 '11 at 03:29
  • While I can't claim specifically exactly how far above "90% Pantone" coverage Canon can achieve, I can specifically state that Epson can only achieve it with a single specific paper type. I think it is safe to say that both Canon and Epson can achieve 90% Panton gamut coverage with their printers and their papers, at maximum DPI for each printer. Epson has a presumed 10 year lead on Canon inks as far as longevity goes...however those numbers are estimates to start with, and both "max out" at 200-300 years. – jrista Jan 31 '11 at 03:32
  • [Epson Ultrachrom HDR Wilhelm Research Study http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/WIR_Ep_ESP4900_2010_10_26.pdf ] [Canon Lucia EX Wilhelm Research Study http://www.wilhelm-research.com/canon/WIR_Canon8300_2010_09_02.pdf ] – jrista Jan 31 '11 at 03:33
  • @jrista: Just FWIW, the links you just posted appear to be broken. Epson has only had a single paper certified; that does't mean the gamut suddenly shrinks dramatically with other papers. Given the size of the difference, it's extremely doubtful that there's any circumstance under which the Canon can match the Epson. – Jerry Coffin Jan 31 '11 at 03:42
  • Try the links now...I tried to link them with better formatting, but I seem to be missing something. Anyway, gamut is very dependent on paper, particularly the white point of the paper. It is not surprising to me that full gamut can only be achieved on a small range of brand-specific paper, at a specific DPI. That may be why Epson has introduced Ultrachrome HDR + White...they may be trying to control white point more to expand that gamut coverage to other papers. – jrista Jan 31 '11 at 03:59
  • @jrista: Yes, the links seem fixed. Yes, they can undoubtedly both achieve 90% under a variety of circumstances -- but saying that about the Epson is a bit like implying that a Prius is as fast as a Formula 1 race car because they can both do at least 60 MPH. – Jerry Coffin Jan 31 '11 at 04:12
  • As far as longevity goes, I probably should have phrased things differently. My real intent wasn't to say that Epson was dramatically superior, only that (unlike the situation with some dye-based printers) they're not achieving a wide gamut at the expense of print life. – Jerry Coffin Jan 31 '11 at 04:16
  • I think your analogy is exactly what is wrong with your approach here. A better analogy would be comparing two competing F1 cars that can reach 230mph, but one can reach 260mph under certain circumstances while the other might only reach 240mph. The gap is not nearly as large as you seem to think, and I think your spreading some misinformation about how "bad" you seem to think Canon is in comparison. I see that far too much from long-term Epson diehards who've been using Epson for many years. The game has changed, and I think people need to recognize that. – jrista Jan 31 '11 at 06:12
  • Well, I've looked at prints from a 4900 and a 9500.2 side-by-side, and the difference looked pretty large to me. To somebody used to older Canons, the 9500.2 is undoubtedly a huge improvement. If you're happy with it, that's great -- but don't try to tell me that I should ignore what I see. – Jerry Coffin Jan 31 '11 at 06:55
  • Well, if you compare the 4900 to a 9500 II, there is a difference. I don't think it is as subjectively "huge" as you are making out, but you are comparing Lucia ink to Ultrachrome HDR ink, which is an unfair comparison. That was why I compared Lucia to Ultrachrome K3 before. If you want an objective comparison with an honest outcome, you need to OBJECTIVELY compare prints from a 4900 with, say, an iPF 6350, which uses Lucia EX. My problem with your comparisons is they are VERY biased and subjective, and rather unfair...which is the bent I get from most Epson diehards. – jrista Jan 31 '11 at 19:20
  • I should also state that I am not particularly attached to either brand. I like both Epson and Canon printers...and right now, Epson REALLY intrigues me with their new Ultracrhome HDR + White ink. I am not exactly sure where they can go with that, or how broadly applicable it may be, but it sounds like they could give the printer some control over white point with a white ink. That does bring a nice new facet to the game, and should produce some intriguing competition in the future. I just think there needs to be more OBJECTIVE discussion about inks from Epson and Canon these days. – jrista Jan 31 '11 at 19:22