printer calibration

"bmoag" wrote in message

Has anyone used Colorvision’s Printfix system to calibrate printers? In particular I am interested for use with Canon printers as my experience with Epson printers gets pretty good results using Epson’s canned profiles but Canon’s printer/paper profiles seem somewhat color blind.

I have used it with my Canon s9000 but am not impressed with the results. The scanner seems unable to draw the test print through without skewing it, apparently others have found this too.
The new version of the printfix software is slightly better as it now comes with a colour patch to set up the scanner first. The resulting profile is not bad, but mid greys are a bit blue.
Overall I get better results using the Canon profile, although I don’t use Canon paper.

Dave Stewart
www.xtreme-action-images.com

Just got the suite this week. I also have the Canon i9900. As someone already mentioned, the scanner has problems skewing or jamming the calibration charts – a known problem. I made a post (mini-review) over in rec.photo.digital a couple of days ago and I’ll include it here now along with some updates. ColorVision knows this scanner is a problem and they’re sending me a replacement unit that they supposedly checked out.

Additionally, if you have let your calibration prints dry thoroughly (24hrs) you do not need to use the plastic sleeves. The sleeves are used only to keep ink from rubbing off on the scanner rollers and LEDs. Also, when you make a calibration print and crop it as per the instructions, the approx 1/8" to 1/4" wide margin you leave around the edges is used as part of the calibration process. That was a question asked by someone else and I asked ColorVision just today if the margin is used – Yes it is as per their tech support.

If you get the suite, you also get DoctorPro which is an Adobe plug-in that allows you to tweak the profiles you make. I’ve only done a couple of profiles and while it’s pretty straight-forward, I can see how all the variables involved can make getting a decent profile compiled and tweaked a bit of a process if you want to get it right. Not just with ColorVisions systems but with anyones from what I’ve read. If there is a fool-proof system out there in the $400 USD price range, I’d like to know about it.

I’ve also done some checking on the other calibration products available in this price range and then did some reading about what people were saying about them. It appears – others are also having some difficulties. So at this price point, you will have some trade-off’s – such as the scanner problem. Given, the scanner will not be used that much in reality, so if it works "reasonably" well, I’ll settle for that tradeoff with the hope that the software lives up to it’s claims. If not, I have 30 days to return the whole thing. But after looking around at what’s available in this price range, I thinks it’s on par with the competition. Now if you want to spend a whole bunch more – there are some heavy duty solutions available.

Below is my initial mini-review:
…………………………….

Two weeks ago I had asked if anyone had any experience with ColorVisions PrintFix profiler scanner and software. No responses at that time but I went ahead and ordered the suite that comes with the new Spyder2Pro. It arrived this past Tuesday and I’ve been playing with it as time allows.

The Spyder2 and it’s software appear to work just fine and my 19" monitors (LCD primary, CRT secondary) look good – especially the LCD. Takes about 15 minutes for the software to go thru it’s paces to calibrate the monitors. You must initially set the monitors to the factory defaults prior to running the calibration. For LCD’s it’s pretty straight forward but for CRT’s, it can get about as picky as you want using a more manual mode – setting adjustments as the program progresses. I chose the fully automatic settings for my CRT monitor since it’s a secondary and I don’t do any photo editing on that one anyway. As for the LCD (ViewSonic), it’s about as good as I can expect for it’s price range. Not great – but very good indeed and the test picture that comes on the CD looks super on the LCD.

As for PrintFix – I’m having a bit of a problem with the scanner and the plastic sleeves they provide to hold your calibration prints while they’re put thru the scanner. Maybe I have a bad unit but research of some past reviews show this particular problem to be a thorn in their side since it came out in May 2003. Appears they haven’t been able to solve it either. Basically, with a print in the sleeve, the sleeve will skew after scanning about 1 or 2 inches, then either continue on thru skewed to one side or it will jam. Placing a calibration print (dried for 24hrs) thru the scanner without the plastic sleeve works better and you have about a 50-50 chance of it not skewing. I had made calibration prints for 5 different papers – all standard weights (~10mil), so nothing extra heavy that could possibly cause the jamming.

One point that doesn’t make all that much sense is that these calibration prints must be made on 8×10 paper and then cut from that with a final size of 4"x6" to be scanned? So if you only have paper in a 4×6 size, ColorVision say’s the print you make on that will not turn out properly but offered no explanation why. I’ll play with that later.

Not being able to get a single good calibration scan while using the plastic sleeves, I finally just scanned the prints in without the sleeves. Again, lots of putzin around to get a scan that was not skewed in some fashion. I used those to build the profiles and then made some test prints.

I have a Canon i9900 and use Photoshop CS as well as having Elements 3. I used CS and followed ColorVisions instructions to the letter in building the profiles – no problems. I then printed the test image they furnish on the CD. I used the profile I made for Kodak Ultima paper as my first test since I also have a profile I downloaded from Kodak for the Canon i9900 and the Ultima paper. The PrintFix profile looked good but the reds were more towards the orange and the blues were slightly saturated. Certainly acceptable but on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being the best, I’d rate it a
7.

Printing the same picture using the Kodak profile and recommended adjustments came out much better. Again but not as noticeable, the reds tended to be orangish but the blues were not as saturated and I would rate it a 9. Very subjective in my rating but without a scientific method of actually measuring the prints – you’ll have to settle for these old eye’s.

I’ve been swapping emails with ColorVision on this and so far it’s just been there questions and my answers. My problem appears to be a mechanical type problem and not software and I haven’t played around enough with the profiles to see how close they can be tweaked using the other plug-in (DoctorPro) they supply for directly tweaking the profiles.

I don’t expect either the hardware or the software in this price range (~$400 USD) to give the same results some high-end solutions can provide but I do expect it to work reliably. If things don’t work out, I have 30 days to return it – no questions asked they say.

I’ve been reading a couple of comments about the "Monaco Optix XR" but haven’t looked into – yet. Anyone have one and using it?

If there is any interest shown in the above, I’ll post a follow-up but it appears that not many are using the PrintFix profiler package and that may be the message I should be listening to – there must be a reason why….

Bob S.

I enjoyed the discussion, keep it coming.
I want to get into printing my pics but it seems unreal. The inks are so expensive and, in the past have "dried up" before I could use them all up. I would be interested in hearing about the Canon i9900. I hear it is a good printer.
William Kazak

William,

I boiled down my selection from doing a lot of reading here, looking at sites that have equipment reviews (and not resellers of the equipment) and after all was said and done, the Canon i9900 was the winner for me. Not knocking anyone else’s printer but the cost of ink and paper are the on-going expenses you must consider.

First, as I’ve found out, using other than the OEM inks may not provide the best quality colors or the longevity you may be expecting. A number of 3rd inks have been tested and fall far short of being anyway near the quality they advertise. But if you’re going to invest nearly $500 in a printer, then the cost of a OEM ink cartridge (~$11) is not outrageous for the quality of the ink you’re getting.

If you don’t really care about how long the prints will last before they fade, or the color quality, then there’s no sense in purchasing a $500 printer. There are a lot of printers out there that cost less and you can use refill kits from wherever so if the ink dries out – so what?

But as for the Canon, I’ve had it only a month, printed about 120 4×6’s, a dozen 8×10’s and my PM ink cartridge is just about to run out. Three other colors are at about 40% full and the rest are at about 90% full yet. I haven’t worked out the cost of that on a per print basis (others have) but I think it’s reasonable. I have ordered additional Canon cartridges and have 18 spares. Best price I found was thru Sam’s Club on-line ordering at $9.33 each (as I recall) whereas everyone else seems to be at the $11 mark or higher.

As for how good the i9900 is at printing – Wow ! In comparison to my past inkjet printers and other models I compared against at various stores, this one really stands out. You need to read some (hopefully) unbiased reviews and then make up your own mind about what you think is good.

Bob S.

"William Kazak" wrote in message

I enjoyed the discussion, keep it coming.
I want to get into printing my pics but it seems unreal. The inks are so expensive and, in the past have "dried up" before I could use them all up. I would be interested in hearing about the Canon i9900. I hear it is a

good

printer.
William Kazak

Thanks for the tip on the Canon printer. I heard it was a good one as well as the Canon Pixma IP 8500 model.
William Kazak