Canon Pro9000 Mark II Best Printer settings?

Started Nov 10, 2012 | Questions thread
OP mistermejia Veteran Member • Posts: 3,340
Re: Negative, nothing is broken!

rpenmanparker wrote:

There are a number of folks on this forum who, like myself, would insist that despite the differences between display and print (transmission vs. reflection of light), the two should agree "nearly" perfectly. It doesn't matter how you shoot your digital file (i.e. how wierd the information is in the image file), if you are looking at it on a properly calibrated monitor, you should obtain a matching print. Basically, if the monitor properly represents the digital file and the print properly represents the digital file, then they should match each other. Kind of like if A=B and C=B, then A=B. That is the fundamental underpinning of using the monitor to design the print. One wants both the monitor and the printer to faithfully represent the digital image file, so they can faithfully represent each other. Simple, huh?

So the fact that your prints don't match your screen does NOT mean you are shooting your photos at the wrong contrast or saturation, etc. Or at camera settings that make it impossible to represent properly in a print. It means that either you are not seeing the right image on your monitor or you are not printing the right image on your printer. That doesn't mean you will necessarily like your monitor views and/or prints shot at these exotic camera settings, it just means they should match.

Say what you want, a serious printer ought not to avoid calibrating his/her monitor with a colorimeter.

For displays only you should be able to obtain a new Datacolor Spyder4 (latest model) in a lower capability version for under $100. Lower capability ColorMunki units perhaps for under $150. And there are others. More capability (TVs, projectors, making printer profiles, etc.) raises the cost. Too bad, I just sold a used Spyder4 Pro (high end model) for $120. New it cost $169. Plenty on ebay and Amazon.

Please do not take offense, but you are in denial. Very common on this forum. Been there, done that myself. You just have to get over it, and the sooner the better.


My monitor look perfectly fine and the prints actually do match what i am seeing on the image, is just that i guess i never payed attention to that process before, my photos come out too reddish becuse i oversaturated them myself, and now that i am actually printing i can see that, that is why i have to decrease saturation in Corel and the photos come out perfectly fine.

Again, I can understand that you guys want to calibrate your monitors, but the truth is that "from what i have researched" about that is that calibrating helps only a little, what you see on the monitor is NOT going to match exactly what you are seeing on the actual print. If you do want a matching monitor you will have to pay $1500 dollars for one that matches very close to actual print, and still wont be exact.

I am not in denial, i am just seeing what i'm seeing and what i have read about that and that is why i am also passing this to you. And of course the industry has alot to do with this i'm sure, by encouraging people to buy stuff that really makes no big difference or that we really don't need, kind of like jiffy lube telling you that you to come back every 3K miles to get your oil change, or when they tell you that your dirty air filter causes your car to give you bad gas milage

Anyway, thanks very much for the information, if for real i really need one of those calibrating devices i will consider what you guys have told me, i will see if any of my friends have one also to test it.

 mistermejia's gear list:mistermejia's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro Fujifilm X-E1 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Tamron SP AF 70-200mm F/2.8 Di LD (IF) MACRO Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +6 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow