- last edited on by
Danny
This pertains to my Pixma Pro 100 Photo Printer which generally speaking produces very nice (and accurate) results. However, I recently experienced something very strange. I'm thinking the best way to describe it is to share some pictures even though I fully recognize that we're all viewing them on different display devices. My hope is that the comparisons are dramatically different enough to make the desired point.
First I offer a file in jpg format that represents the image I'm intending to print as follows:
Note: since jpg files are altered as a result of compression algorithms I always produce file in tif format for the purpose of printing but thought file size might matter here.
Then I also reference an image file that results from scanning 2 prints of the above image image made on my Pixma Pro 100 as follows:
The only difference is that the picture on the top was printed using the My Image Garden program supplied by Canon and the one on the bottom was printed using the Print Studio Pro plugin supplied with the DPP4 (Digital Photo Professional) program also supplied by Canon. Note: both prints were made back to back using the same Canon supplied paper (Photo Paper Plus Glossy II). I also point out that the intention was to use the same printer setting in both cases.
I hope it is evident the print produced by My Image Garden is dramatically different than what is expected. The picture printed by by DPP4 is close but still noticeably different from what is expected. In my case I am using a calibrated display and do have use the soft proofing features in the photo editing software with the ICC profiles that match the paper and printer.
When it comes to what is different between my normally good/great results and this case is that I did NOT take and develop the problematic picture/s. While I only supplied one example there are several others that were acquired the same way that all turned out the same. I thought it might be worth pointing that the image files in question were scaled down versions of images shot with pretty high quality cameras. According to the metadata the example photo was shot using a Canon EOS R6 camera. Something I found interesting is that none of the problematic image files included an ICC profile in the metadata. Note: The example included here was produced by using GIMP to edit the original scaled down image. Therefore, it does include the Built in ICC Profile used by GIMP. I'm NOT smart enough to explain what that might mean but it is something that is different between the problematic files and the ones I normally work with that produce great results.
