Canon vs Red River ICC Profiles

[Forehaven]

Monitor calibrated to 80ccd. Using Qimage One, the print from Canon Pro Luster using Canon's profile, the print matches the screen pretty well other than being sl. warmer than the monitor. Not bad. But when I print using RR's Baryta ICC profile, the image keeps printing like a good f stop darker than the monitor.

Why is this happening when using proper calibration and ICC profiles? How should I proceed to get a sort of standardized result?

Thanks!

 

[Charles2]

Using the Red River profile, you could try Relative Colorimetric rendering with Black Point Compensation and without and also try Perceptual rendering.

 

[eriepa]

Hi Forehaven - I have to ask the obvious question, are you using the Red River paper and the Red River printer/paper specific ICC profile? I've always had good like with RR and am a bit surprised by your post. Thanks.

 

[John_Hoffman]

I have a Canon Pro-100. I manage my files using Lightroom and print via the Windows Qimage Ultimate plug-in. BenQ monitor calibrated to 5800K at 80 luminance.

Whenever I purchase a new type of paper I always print a test image using the Outback Photo test image.

Aside from slight tonal differences caused by paper surface all images are indistinguishable with respect to brightness. This includes Canon, Red River, Canson and Hahnemuehle papers

 

[adew1]

Monitor calibrated to 80ccd. Using Qimage One, the print from Canon Pro Luster using Canon's profile, the print matches the screen pretty well other than being sl. warmer than the monitor. Not bad. But when I print using RR's Baryta ICC profile, the image keeps printing like a good f stop darker than the monitor.

Why would you expect RR's profile to be suitable for a Canon paper? Or have I misunderstood your post?

 

[jrkliny]

Make a call to Red River tech support. I had great follow up the couple of times I had issues.

 

[bmw44]

I am not sure how to answer your question since I have never had that problem. On the other hand, I don't always get exact matches with non custom profiles. That is one reason that I really like Qimage for printing. You can create a print filter for each paper if needed to make small corrections. Even better Qimage now remembers the filter for each paper. For example, with Red River premium matte, I up the contrast and saturation slightly for better results in my opinion. I am also using papers for which there is no profile available from the seller. For example, I am using Kirkland glossy paper from Costco with the Epson profile for their premium glossy paper and a filter correction that gives me very good results.

By the way I am impressed with the Kirkland paper. It is much less expensive than other papers and seems to hold up well. Experimented with putting it in direct sunlight for several months with no noticeable fading. I am not sure how it will hold up over many years but my guess is that it should do well.

--
bmw

 

[wilberforce_1]

I have occasionally been slightly disappointed with RR ICC profiles, and have sometimes found that RR profiles (on matching RR paper) do not give quite as reliable results as Epson profiles (on matching Epson paper).

For example, I get a slight magenta cast using RR polar matte profile on RR polar matte paper, but get no such magenta cast using Epson ultra premium matte profile on Epson ultra premium matte paper. (This magenta cast does not show up on soft proofing the RR profile either).

In fact, I get a better result using Epson ultra premium matte profile on RR polar matte paper, even though mixing profiles and papers is usually considered heresy.

In short, I think it great that RR provides ICC profiles for their papers on a wide variety of printers, but on the other hand I have found that they are not always perfect, resulting in some paper wastage.

 

[bmw44]

I have occasionally been slightly disappointed with RR ICC profiles, and have sometimes found that RR profiles (on matching RR paper) do not give quite as reliable results as Epson profiles (on matching Epson paper).

For example, I get a slight magenta cast using RR polar matte profile on RR polar matte paper, but get no such magenta cast using Epson ultra premium matte profile on Epson ultra premium matte paper. (This magenta cast does not show up on soft proofing the RR profile either).

In fact, I get a better result using Epson ultra premium matte profile on RR polar matte paper, even though mixing profiles and papers is usually considered heresy.

In short, I think it great that RR provides ICC profiles for their papers on a wide variety of printers, but on the other hand I have found that they are not always perfect, resulting in some paper wastage.

I have not found any of the canned profiles to be entirely accurate. There can even be a problem with custom profiles since the eye sees things a bit differently than the spectrometers used in creating profiles. In addition, what is on the computer screen, no matter how good it is, will never entirely match what is seen on a print. And to make things worse prints will look different depending on the light source. Even two light sources with the same color temperature can differ. That is why some light sources claim a high rendering index.

 

[wilberforce_1]

I have occasionally been slightly disappointed with RR ICC profiles, and have sometimes found that RR profiles (on matching RR paper) do not give quite as reliable results as Epson profiles (on matching Epson paper).

For example, I get a slight magenta cast using RR polar matte profile on RR polar matte paper, but get no such magenta cast using Epson ultra premium matte profile on Epson ultra premium matte paper. (This magenta cast does not show up on soft proofing the RR profile either).

In fact, I get a better result using Epson ultra premium matte profile on RR polar matte paper, even though mixing profiles and papers is usually considered heresy.

In short, I think it great that RR provides ICC profiles for their papers on a wide variety of printers, but on the other hand I have found that they are not always perfect, resulting in some paper wastage.

I have not found any of the canned profiles to be entirely accurate. There can even be a problem with custom profiles since the eye sees things a bit differently than the spectrometers used in creating profiles. In addition, what is on the computer screen, no matter how good it is, will never entirely match what is seen on a print. And to make things worse prints will look different depending on the light source. Even two light sources with the same color temperature can differ. That is why some light sources claim a high rendering index.

True, I probably should not have used the word "perfect." But my point remains, that so far I have found that Epson profiles with matching Epson paper to be sufficiently satisfying, and not so for several of the RR profiles/papers, resulting in increased wastage in having to make manual trial-and-error adjustments. I cannot comment on Canon profiles/paper.

 

[bmw44]

Your comment about Epson profiles versus those for Red River is interesting. So far, I have not had that experience. Maybe we are using different papers. I have found both of them to be good especially after a small tweek. I am judging by looking at the results with a standard image, and of course this is somewhat subjective.

 

[mujana]

I have a Canon Pro-100. I manage my files using Lightroom and print via the Windows Qimage Ultimate plug-in. BenQ monitor calibrated to 5800K at 80 luminance.

Whenever I purchase a new type of paper I always print a test image using the Outback Photo test image.

Aside from slight tonal differences caused by paper surface all images are indistinguishable with respect to brightness. This includes Canon, Red River, Canson and Hahnemuehle papers

That' s exactly how I have set my monitor....5800K and 80 luminance. Using QimageOne / only Hahnemühle fine art papers and Canon Pro-1000. Also "emulation" set to specific .icc profile of the Hahnemühle paper of choice. Works flawlessly.

 

[Adam2]

I have occasionally been slightly disappointed with RR ICC profiles, and have sometimes found that RR profiles (on matching RR paper) do not give quite as reliable results as Epson profiles (on matching Epson paper).

Agree. RR claims their profiles are made by a highly respectable commercial company (email them, they'll tell you).

For example, I get a slight magenta cast using RR polar matte profile on RR polar matte paper, but get no such magenta cast using Epson ultra premium matte profile on Epson ultra premium matte paper. (This magenta cast does not show up on soft proofing the RR profile either).

Likewise, I find some of their papers with OBA's or more reflective coatings have profiles which tend towards the magenta. For example, the PD Smooth Rag or Baryta profiles are fine, whereas the PD Soft Gloss is towards magenta. When I've created custom profiles (X-rite i1 pro 3) the profiles are warmer and slightly more accurate though I am unable to reproduce the shadow detail that the RR profile provides. I've provided the profiles and sample images to RR and they claimed the original profiles were checked and they could find no errors.

In fact, I get a better result using Epson ultra premium matte profile on RR polar matte paper, even though mixing profiles and papers is usually considered heresy.

Can't comment.

In short, I think it great that RR provides ICC profiles for their papers on a wide variety of printers, but on the other hand I have found that they are not always perfect, resulting in some paper wastage.

Precisely, though it is clear that some papers are difficult to profile for a variety of reasons.

 

[Forehaven]

I'm using RR profiles on RR paper just to clarify. Very surprised to read many of you have good results using their profiles. I may just give RR a call to get an idea of what maybe going on.

Thanks everyone!

 

[Adam2]

I'm using RR profiles on RR paper just to clarify. Very surprised to read many of you have good results using their profiles. I may just give RR a call to get an idea of what maybe going on.

Thanks everyone!

Yes. one would want to use the corresponding paper/profile and apart from some of the papers with specular coatings such as PD Softgloss Rag, I've found their profiles pretty accurate for the papers tested.