Canon PIXMA IP7250 // (PS) editing, colours, tones, papers etc.

[16bit]

Hi all,

History:
Had an Epson stylus 880 circa the turn of the millennium. After the first set of genuine inks ran out I used some 3rd party ones, which were fine enough I guess. Never printed on photo paper, only Kodak 90gsm "bright white" (actually off-white) inkjet paper.
Eventually the printer gave up, printing blue horizontal lines about 12mm apart, all the way down the page. It had some issues with banding too, producing alternating lighter/darker bands. Finally decided to give up with it, opened it up and found a swamp of ink gunge inside it.

Moved on to a Canon PIXMA IP4300, just before the 4500 came out. ChromaLife100 CLI-8 genuine (as far as I can tell*) Canon inks were used always, with the same Kodak inkjet paper above and also Tesco "Extra White" (looks white) 90gsm inkjet paper, but more importantly a couple of prints on Canon Photo Paper Plus Glossy PP-101.
This printer recently gave up, with the dreaded 5-blinking amber flashes. Pulled the head out, ran warm water through it. Eventually started to work (after all the faint lines and banding went away - ink priming) and then wouldn't even print a document at all. Entered service menu and performed all sorts and no dice. It's now in parts heading for landfill.

*Inks bought from Amazon (sold by Amazon), 7dayshop and ValueShop (when they were actually legitimate, along time ago). As far as I could tell everything checked out, and was genuine.
I still have genuine Canon CLI-8 C+M+Y "Creative Pack", CLI-8 Yellow, and two CLI-8 BK carts sealed in plastic and in their boxes, unused and unopened. Canon have said there is no expiry, so if anyone wants these discounted, then message me and we'll work something out. Hopefully I am not breaking rules saying that. Please remove this offer if so.


Current Setup and Results:
We now have a PIXMA IP7250. Whilst I was less than happy about the idea of no rear sheet feeder, I couldn't justify the price of IX6850 A3+, we just don't have the wall space for A3 prints.
In use, it's not such a big deal, paper feeds in from the bottom tray print-side face down, and does a U-turn that our current UK government would be proud of, and comes out the front as expected.

Using a Dell u2415 IPS monitor, calibrated using a ColorMunki Display and ArgyllCMS/DisplayCal under Windows 7 Pro x64.
I have an X-rite 24-patch ColourChecker (for calibrating cameras/lenses and making RAW profiles) and have found the sRGB and AdobeRGB number values for the corresponding patches. Made an image in Photoshop and have checked the screen to the ColourChecker and it matches pretty darn well, except for the screen being back-lit, no real way to get 'thick' colour like a print.

Printing onto Canon PP-101 (Photo Plus Glossy original) using a 16 bit sRGB image in Photoshop to the Canon XPS driver and letting the printer handle the colours (Photo Plus Glossy II / High Quality) produces a good looking image, with just a little tendency to put blues shades towards a greener hue, as well as perhaps adding a little extra magenta to skin tones. For a quick and simple fix I am simply using a Levels adjustment layer set to the blue channel setting black point to +5, white point to 250 (-5) and lifting the midpoint to 1.05. This makes things look a little cold on screen but fixes the printer colour fine.
Incidentally, it looks almost indistinguishable from output of the IP4300 it replaced.

Note: Leave paper to settle for at least 30 minutes before evaluating anything.. Darker yellows simply mush, blacks do not have any contrast and the whole image looks terribly soft when it comes out of the printer on this paper. If you check back, minute by minute it actually improves, as the ink moves to it's correct position in the paper coating structure. Best to evaluate the next day, leaving 12+ hours for it to settle, kept flat and without anything on top.

My overall impression of the PP-101 (and I guess PP-201) paper is that it gives a strong contrast and deep colour.

We've never been a fan of glossy 6x4 backs in the day, always going for the "pearl"/"lustre"/"semi-gloss" options where available.
So I now have some Canon SG-201 Photo Paper Plus Semi-Gloss on order to see how that works out comparatively.

A complete set of genuine Canon XL ink cartridges is on it's way too, so plenty of ink to experiment with.

Questions:

Paper

Whilst the Canon paper is 'guaranteed' to work with the printer, and the manual even goes so far as to advise against using any kind of non-Canon photo/art papers (BS!) I would like to see how things work out with something a bit more "premium" for want of a better word.

I have been in contact with a chap who has used the following with this printer:
Ilford Galerie Prestige Gold Mono Silk (270 gsm / 0.265 mm)
Ilford Galerie Prestige Smooth Pearl (310 gsm / 0.31 mm)
Fotospeed Photo Smooth Pearl (290 gsm / 0.29 mm)

What are people's experiences with non-Canon paper and this printer? How have the free ICC profiles worked out or the profiling service (eg. Fotospeed) actually performed?

Has anyone tried any Photo Rag matte papers? I fear that the 'Giclee Fine Art standard' Hahnemühle 308 (0.48mm) maybe just too resistant to bending to do the 180-turn, but the 188 gsm (0.30 mm) variant maybe fine, as well as the warmer Matt Fibre 200 (0.30 mm). The surface of these matte papers maybe also be an issue for such a consumer low-end printer, and may require the maintenance option "prevent paper abrasion" turned on.

I have 50X 6x4" Canon GP-501? from a value pack with ink. Again, glossy but a more budget version.
I also have a Permajet sample pack from a magazine, 5X 7x5" Oyster 271 gsm and 5X 7x5" Gloss 271 gsm.

Ink

So far I am on genuine Canon ink, but how have people got on with 3rd party inks?
For regular inkjet paper I doubt it makes a huge difference, maybe clogs a bit quicker, but for photo prints I would expect Canon to perform better. I suppose there are better quality ink manufacturers out there rather than Joe-no-name brand on a popular auction site.

Someone else to do the prints

What Fine Art Giclee printer services have people used and how do they fair?

I was considering just buying a mono-chrome laser printer for documents and having all of the photo prints done somewhere else. But we are picky and I can see us having nightmares with prints not delivering what I send. Then there is the issue where what I think I see on screen is actually not what I really am seeing - ya know this whole thing where ya spend a lot of time editing an image in isolation, only to realise you've made the skin dark orange, which looked nice and warm on screen, but awful on print. Then when you check back to screen you realise just how orange it really is! This is happening quite a bit - not printing anything for a long time leads to having a warped sense of what the image looks like.

 

[16bit]

I've just screen grabbed the levels panel incase anyone was wondering what I meant.

Spoiler: Window snip of PS level adjustment tool

Is anyone noticing that when fed with Canon glossy PP-101 at least, the front glossy side of the paper is being marked by the rollers and mechanism? I have an old print from an IP4300 in a box and that looks glossy right across with a slight texture to the paper itself. It's almost as if the IP7250 is somehow marring the texture when fed through. It can be seen only when the light catches it, so it doesn't affect the actual print itself, but does seem to be agitating the surface.

I am going to have to take some images side by side with my monitor and print, and also of the paper marking I see. As they say, a picture speaks many words.

 

[Harlequin565]

Re Paper / Caveat - don't have your printer....

Of the three papers you've suggested, I have one (Fotospeed) and it's terrible compared to the other papers I've tested. However your printer spec says "nothing >300gsm" so that would rule out many of the papers I use. Of the papers I've tested at that price point (and taking into account the 300gsm limit and the "probability" of a u-turn in the paper feed) I'd say have a look at Olmec's Photo Metallic Lustre. It's my go-to contact sheet paper because it's relatively inexpensive and the colours are nice & rich without it being overly glossy (although I'd call it a gloss paper rather than a lustre) Best value "lustre that is actually lustre" - by my definition - would be Pinnacle Premium Lustre but that's a 300gsm paper and quite thick feeling too. I've tried four different Ilford papers and disliked them all (Smooth Silk, Gold Fibre Silk & 2 I can't remember) as they feel too plasticky for their price points.

As far as matt papers go, I think everything I've tested would fail to go "round the bend" with perhaps the sole exception of Epson Velvet Fine Art 260gsm (which is expensive) and Innova FibaPrint White Semi-matt 250gsm (which is actually matt but has strong OBAs). The Hahnemuhle papers all seem overly heavy unfortunately and are the only paper where I automatically need to raise the platen gap to avoid head strikes. My personal favourite papers are the St Cuthbert's Mill - esp Somerset Photo Satin. Lovely paper that will displace my Canson Rag Photo Duo when the box expires.

Test packs are your friend here. Paper is such a minefield

 

[16bit]

Thank you for your input, Harlequin565.

Canon are deliberately trying to force sales of their own paper on this machine:

"Media Types You Cannot Use: ... Paper that is too thick (weighing more than 28 lb (105 g /m2), except for Canon genuine paper)"
"Do not use heavier or lighter paper (except for Canon genuine paper), as it could jam in the printer."

With that said, I have spoken to someone with this model and he has had success with the list of papers that I posted above. So it will print on some heavier paper as long as it's not too stiff and not too thick - I cannot quantify these yet.

Colour considerations:
I have re-calibrated the monitor to D5500 and down to 60cdm2. Soft-proofing with the GL2 profile is still a little off, mostly in terms of brightness, but there is a slight tweak of hues in different areas that don't quite match up. I think some of the inaccuracy between print and screen is coming from a total lack of ambient light control. All well and good calibrating a monitor, but you can't calibrate the light coming through your window, or lack of it. I may need to buy/make a small light booth just to have comparable viewing conditions, else it's unfair to complain too much.
The dark art of printing may just be that. I don't like the saying "as long as the print looks good" because, how does one know how to make it "look good"? Accuracy is the only thing that can be measured and made repeatable. If there are a few subtle differences between screen and print, these can be remembered and adjusted for, knowing that the printer will do xyz to the image on screen, but if it's too far out, who knows what you'll get!
Just the same with audio, ya may not have a perfectly linear frequency response in the highs, but as long as you know your monitoring setup is a bit bright or forward in the upper mids, you can kinda work around it - would be better for a perfect monitoring setup (equipment, and room) just like for viewing/editing the images on screen (monitor, calibration, ambient conditions), but there is some degree of give that we can factor out/work around.

 

[16bit]

Canon Semi-Gloss SG-201 arrived today, and it certainly has a different outcome to the Canon Plus Glossy PP-101.
One thing confirmed, we still prefer lustre/semi-gloss/pearl/oyster or whatever non-high gloss finish over glossy. That completely puts the Canon Platinum Glossy out for us, because it's even glossier than PP-201 which is glossier than it's older PP-101 counterpart.

In the hand, SG-201 feels a bit waxy and thinner, less stiff than the PP-101 we've been getting used to, it also has a tendency to curve over the short surface, it just won't stand up flat! Mounting it would remove this issue.
The surface isn't too aggressively stippled, much more so than the Dell u2415 monitor I am using, but it still doesn't look like the surface is a carpet of high ISO noise.
Reflections are just subtle now. Sure it'll reflect light, but it's not picking up every shadow and object in the room.

Now, the issue of colour/tone appearance.

It's cooler and less bright than PP-101, this is using Photoshop to manage colours and using the Relative Colorimetric intent for all prints. Somehow it looks more involving and three-dimensional in this particular image than the PP-101 counterpart.
I think there is a gaff with Canon's ICC profiles as the soft-proof doesn't change the image hardly, yet the printed image has a definite shift of colours. It's not me, I did it correctly, I checked the print history, rebuilt the image from the 8-bit non-tagged .PNG files and assigned the SG2 profile (semi-gloss, 2 quality high), then converted the original image to the same color profile and duplicated it ontop of the print history one. The two match perfectly.

I intend to take a few photos tomorrow to give an idea of what I experience.


For fun, I ran a 5x7 of PermaJet Oyster 271 gsm with the same settings for Canon SG-201. The differences between SG-201 and Oyster 271 are minimal, except for PermaJet paper whiteness being starkly brighter, and some of the tones erring a hint warmer and lighter than on Canon paper. I actually quite like the PermaJet paper, and seeing as they offer a similar profiling service to Fotospeed, this could be a possibility.


I have a single sheet of Canon Matt MP-101 with missing corner for head alignment. I'd rather not use this for testing in case I need to realign the head at some point. That said, it's not expensive paper to buy a stack.
It just felt a bit cheap as far as comparing Hahnemühle PhotoRag 308 (at least that's what was being sold) on a couple of prints we purchased.


Paper choosing is going to be a big task, else we just settle on a few choices and move on. This question has to be asked, is there too much point with a low-end printer such as this? Certainly no point spending more on paper than we did on the printer!
I am keeping a log of all prints and on/off actions. So far it's looking like the 'setup' inks contain a regular and standard volume of ink. I have reached over 50% of the claimed photo print area (131 6x4s), Cyan and Magenta have both dropped 2 marks, all others including pigment black has dropped 1 mark, and I have turned on/off 8 times. Included was a head alignment and 2 standard quality A4 prints on plain paper. So far so good.

 

[16bit]

After some weighing up and rethinking, I decided to grab some PermaJet Oyster A4 and get it profiled by them.
My reasoning came from the fact that I may just get away with using the same profile, with an adjustment layer or two, for the Canon SG-201 Semi-Gloss, as the two looked similar with Canon's canned profile.

PermaJet Oyster comes in a stiff card box. It's a far better solution than what Canon put their paper in, a soft card sleeve. Definitely has a premium feel to the whole package, even for being one of the cheaper photo papers around.
Looks pretty much the same as the 7x5 samples I had before. There is a slight tendency to curve over the shorter length, but it's not as bad as the Canon SG-201.
One thing that's quite noticeable, is that the Oyster is more transparent than the Canon papers I have. Hold them up to the light and look through, and it's more like tracing paper. However, it's a moot point, as when looked at with an opaque backing (framed/on a wall) this won't be an issue at all.

Followed the instructions to print the X-Rite printer profiling chart using Adobe Colour Print Utility, and it comes out about 4% smaller than it should be. It's apparently a known bug with the program on Windows. For most folks, as long as the diamond shapes are readable and maintain aspect ratio, it's fine to be a little smaller. I popped the sheet in some card and posted it off 1st class large letter for about £1.30 (because the card weighed over 100g). Credit to PermaJet's profiling team, I had a profile emailed to me the very next day. Impressively quick.

Due to the Oyster having such a bright white (read: comparatively cool white) paper colour, things look naturally cooler than either of the two Canon papers.
This has meant that I have had to come back to D65/6500K on the monitor rather than the warmer D55/5500K which was helping m get closer to matching the Canon prints.

One thing, using Relative Colorimetric with Black Point Compensation and the custom profile things look good.
Comparing screen to print is virtually impossible without a calibrated viewing light, but that said, when looking at the screen and then turning away to look at the print, the Oyster (with it's custom profile) is the only one that bears a close resemblance to the screen feel.

We reprinted every image, only changing the print settings for the Oyster paper and for every (except for one*) we unanimously chose the Oyster over the starkly yellow Canon PP-101 Plus Glossy and also over the seemingly dirty green/yellow Canon SG-201 Semi-Gloss.
We don't like the highly glossy surface anyway, but that's neither here nor there, as both Semi-Gloss and Oyster are fine at diffusing the reflections. It's quite clear that Canon's canned profiles for this budget printer are woefully inaccurate, and are tough to adjust for.
On the profiled Oyster there is a depth and three-dimensional feel that makes it seem alive. I don't know if the other papers I have are capable of this, but without a custom profile it's a nightmare of offsetting.
* One image we preferred on Canon PP-101 glossy, this was due to warmer tone. However, the screen image was much closer to the Oyster print, and so I added an 81 warming filter at 25% in color mode, and re-printed on Oyster. This version was preferred over the Gloss. It was quite similar in may tones, except for the darker bluey hues (purples to teals), where the Canon was noticeably more tinged to yellows and was darker in brightness.


It annoys me that Canon and all printer manufacturers do not offer a free profiling service for their own paper. It's clear that their canned profiles on budget printers are terribly inaccurate and probably haven't changed over many models. A small disclaimer in the manual suggesting that the included profile should be sufficient, but for more accurate prints to download a test chart, print it and post it to their profiling department (or profiling company working on their behalf). I don't think it would cost the companies much and could increase sales of their own branded papers, which they tell you to only use.

From my experience, I would urge anyone experiencing prints not really living up to their screen image to grab some 3rd party paper from any that offer free profiling and get it profiled for the cost of postage. It's making a huge difference in our case, even with a budget printer.


Oh, and as for ink usage goes. The ISO tests indicated that it's about 121x 10x15cm prints for normal size ink tank yield, continuous printing. Getting to the very bottom of just what the tests are is tough, but it's something like a 6 different test images run in batches continuously until the ink actually runs out/printer stops printing. So far, measuring all of the print areas of photo prints I have made, I'm about 88% of that total area, and that includes a number of turning off overnight, and turning on the next day, or a few days later. The "setup" inks are so far, seemingly full sized standard cartridges, at least for this model in UK.



Sorry, no photo's of these prints to compare differences. I may get around to it.