Canon S9000 profiles

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Canon does indeed provide profiles for their branded papers.
If you do not realize this then, no fault of your own, you are not actually
following Canon's arcane color management procedures. Contact Canon and they
will E-mail you the instructions as I never found them in manuals that came
with my Canon printer.
This may be your good fortune if you are getting reliably predictable color
matching between your calibrated monitor and your first print with the
procedures you are using. If you assume that Canon drivers follow procedures
similar to Epson you may end up with pink tinged, double color managed
prints.
If you follow Canon's procedures, which include choosing a canned color
profile limited to Canon brand papers (really 3 surface types) the best one
gets, at least the best I ever got, are undersaturated and low contrast
prints.
In my experience Epson color management is far nearer WYSIWYG compared to
the calibrated monitor in every way than Canon.
Canon has serious problems with software across its entire product line
including scanners and cameras (a firmware upgrade to the D20 within days of
release is not a sign of good software engineering; the sofware for the late
Canoscan 4000 never delivered what the scanner was capable of producing).

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"bmoag" <apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:yp_Yd.9450$C47.9251@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> Canon does indeed provide profiles for their branded papers.
> If you do not realize this then, no fault of your own, you are not
> actually following Canon's arcane color management procedures. Contact
> Canon and they will E-mail you the instructions as I never found them in
> manuals that came with my Canon printer.
> This may be your good fortune if you are getting reliably predictable
> color matching between your calibrated monitor and your first print with
> the procedures you are using. If you assume that Canon drivers follow
> procedures similar to Epson you may end up with pink tinged, double color
> managed prints.
> If you follow Canon's procedures, which include choosing a canned color
> profile limited to Canon brand papers (really 3 surface types) the best
> one gets, at least the best I ever got, are undersaturated and low
> contrast prints.
> In my experience Epson color management is far nearer WYSIWYG compared to
> the calibrated monitor in every way than Canon.
> Canon has serious problems with software across its entire product line
> including scanners and cameras (a firmware upgrade to the D20 within days
> of release is not a sign of good software engineering; the sofware for the
> late Canoscan 4000 never delivered what the scanner was capable of
> producing).
>
Hmmm, that may be why I get better prints with Ilford Gallerie Classic
papers than with Canon. I never found any profiles, either, but it wasn't a
worry since I use primarily Ilford paper. You'd think they'd at least
calibrate the printers for their own paper...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Skip M wrote:

> Hmmm, that may be why I get better prints with Ilford Gallerie Classic
> papers than with Canon. I never found any profiles, either, but it wasn't
> a
> worry since I use primarily Ilford paper. You'd think they'd at least
> calibrate the printers for their own paper...
>

I wasn't getting =really= good prints from my i9900 using any paper/canned
profiles till I sent off for a custom profile from "Cathy's profiles", best
$40 I've spent. Had this done on ilford classic pearl and the prints this
thing produces is now fantastic, no surprises, great saturation etc etc.

I think the problem is the printers themselves vary from sample to sample
enough where the canned profiles just aren't close enough. I had two
different of these printers trying to solve a bad magenta shift (which one
printer had and the other didn't) so I think the only way to ever get true
calibration is with a custom profile.

--

Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
>
> I wasn't getting =really= good prints from my i9900 using any paper/canned
> profiles till I sent off for a custom profile from...


It seems 'Stacey' only visits here to advertise...

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:26:09 -0800, paul <paul@not.net> wrote:

>Stacey wrote:
>>
>> I wasn't getting =really= good prints from my i9900 using any paper/canned
>> profiles till I sent off for a custom profile from...
>
>
>It seems 'Stacey' only visits here to advertise...


What's your gripe? Her response to the OP
was appropriate, IMO. Not the only possible
solution, but one of several. Testimonials
are legit, and useful. Hell, that's half
or three quarters of what we do here.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

rafe bustin wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:26:09 -0800, paul <paul@not.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Stacey wrote:
>>
>>>I wasn't getting =really= good prints from my i9900 using any paper/canned
>>>profiles till I sent off for a custom profile from...
>>
>>
>>It seems 'Stacey' only visits here to advertise...
>
>
>
> What's your gripe? Her response to the OP
> was appropriate, IMO. Not the only possible
> solution, but one of several. Testimonials
> are legit, and useful. Hell, that's half
> or three quarters of what we do here.


OK fair enough, just to let people know 'Stacey' does not appear to be
an unbiased testimonial as presented.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul wrote:

> rafe bustin wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:26:09 -0800, paul <paul@not.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Stacey wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wasn't getting =really= good prints from my i9900 using any
>>>> paper/canned
>>>> profiles till I sent off for a custom profile from...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It seems 'Stacey' only visits here to advertise...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> What's your gripe? Her response to the OP was appropriate, IMO. Not
>> the only possible solution, but one of several. Testimonials are
>> legit, and useful. Hell, that's half or three quarters of what we do
>> here.
>
>
>
> OK fair enough, just to let people know 'Stacey' does not appear to be
> an unbiased testimonial as presented.


My gripe is 'Stacey' should not have pretended to be an anonymous
bystander. AFAIC if 'Stacey' had said something more like: 'I sell
custom profiles that meet your needs' I would be fine with that but
pretending to be some innocent bystander is just plain lying. My
apologies if 'Stacey' has posted any other contributions besides this
line. Really I'm fine if sellers are up front, that's cool if industry
insiders want to pitch appropriately (and 'Stacey' has always been right
on target) but this appears to be a misrepresentation and that
discredits the seller's integrity.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul wrote:
>
> paul wrote:
>
> > rafe bustin wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:26:09 -0800, paul <paul@not.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Stacey wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I wasn't getting =really= good prints from my i9900 using any
> >>>> paper/canned
> >>>> profiles till I sent off for a custom profile from...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> It seems 'Stacey' only visits here to advertise...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> What's your gripe? Her response to the OP was appropriate, IMO. Not
> >> the only possible solution, but one of several. Testimonials are
> >> legit, and useful. Hell, that's half or three quarters of what we do
> >> here.
> >
> >
> >
> > OK fair enough, just to let people know 'Stacey' does not appear to be
> > an unbiased testimonial as presented.
>
> My gripe is 'Stacey' should not have pretended to be an anonymous
> bystander. AFAIC if 'Stacey' had said something more like: 'I sell
> custom profiles that meet your needs' I would be fine with that but
> pretending to be some innocent bystander is just plain lying. My
> apologies if 'Stacey' has posted any other contributions besides this
> line. Really I'm fine if sellers are up front, that's cool if industry
> insiders want to pitch appropriately (and 'Stacey' has always been right
> on target) but this appears to be a misrepresentation and that
> discredits the seller's integrity.

Stacey has been an active participant in multiple photo groups for
years. Do you have any reason to think that Stacey is other than a
satisfied consumer?

Lisa

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul wrote:
> paul wrote:
>
>> rafe bustin wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:26:09 -0800, paul <paul@not.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Stacey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I wasn't getting =really= good prints from my i9900 using any
>>>>> paper/canned
>>>>> profiles till I sent off for a custom profile from...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It seems 'Stacey' only visits here to advertise...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What's your gripe? Her response to the OP was appropriate, IMO. Not
>>> the only possible solution, but one of several. Testimonials are
>>> legit, and useful. Hell, that's half or three quarters of what we do
>>> here.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> OK fair enough, just to let people know 'Stacey' does not appear to be
>> an unbiased testimonial as presented.
>
>
>
> My gripe is 'Stacey' should not have pretended to be an anonymous
> bystander. AFAIC if 'Stacey' had said something more like: 'I sell
> custom profiles that meet your needs' I would be fine with that but
> pretending to be some innocent bystander is just plain lying. My
> apologies if 'Stacey' has posted any other contributions besides this
> line. Really I'm fine if sellers are up front, that's cool if industry
> insiders want to pitch appropriately (and 'Stacey' has always been right
> on target) but this appears to be a misrepresentation and that
> discredits the seller's integrity.


OK OK I looked back & perhaps I was over-reacting. 'Stacey' did have
quite a few suspicious looking referrals to these profiles but lots of
other sincere contributions. I'm really not one to nitpick this kind of
thing typically but I was/am a bit skeptical.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 22:29:41 -0800, paul <paul@not.net> wrote:


>OK OK I looked back & perhaps I was over-reacting. 'Stacey' did have
>quite a few suspicious looking referrals to these profiles but lots of
>other sincere contributions. I'm really not one to nitpick this kind of
>thing typically but I was/am a bit skeptical.


It's possible Stacey learned about "Cathy's profiles"
from me.. or maybe she did her own web searh. There
are quite a few places that do this. The cost is
anywhere from $40 up to $150. "Cathy's Profiles"
is near the low end in cost (AFAIK) and I've heard
many good reports. Here are a few others:

www.chromix.com
www.drycreekphoto.com
www.outbackphoto.com


You can also try making your own printer profiles
with Profile Prism, from ddisoftware.com.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Lisa Horton wrote:

>
> Stacey has been an active participant in multiple photo groups for
> years. Do you have any reason to think that Stacey is other than a
> satisfied consumer?
>


Yep just a satisfied customer, I guess people could claim I work for Bill
Maxwell since I plug his focus screens regularly? :-)

Anyway I found this $40 was money well spent getting my printing problems
fixed and it made a HUGE difference in the quality. I'm sure any of the
custom printer profile companies do a good job, I just read good reviews
about Cathy's and they are cheap using what seems to be good equipment. I
did some research and seen good and bad reviews on the inexpencive "DIY"
profile packages but that might be a better way to go if you're going to
switch papers a bunch? I plan to stick with this ilford paper so figured I
let someone else make the profile with better equipment than I could ever
afford.
--

Stacey