My Canon PRO-10 on refill ink - and what happened to my PRO-9500II

[palombian]

Go easy on me guys, Question;- is all the Friggin around with these tests really necessary to achieve a good print on whatever paper each individual wishes to use, because for the life of me, I have never found a need to do any of this.
View attachment 9555 Borrowed Ink stained Fingers Image...

Surly it’s the subject in the print that counts and if the photo image is not good, then all these extras won’t turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse..

At the end of the day does it really make that much difference..

I spend all evening finding out where the difference between my first calibration (with mostly OEM) and the last (with Octo CO) that @Ink stained Fingers found could come.
Added OEM C,M and Y (recovered from empty carts from eBay).
You can see the additional color space but not all was recovered.

Added OEM PC and PM wich only very slightly enlarged the gamut (won't show the pic).

Printed the test chart again

I do not see any difference !

I could eat the strawberries (as @jtoolman says) from every of the about 20 prints I made .
IMO this test chart lacks also large blue, green and yellow surfaces to judge.

And if I do not see - on the real print under a truelight lamp - any difference that could even so good have been caused by a slight move of a slider in the editor or a slightly different print profile or setting (let be the difference between perceptual and relative intent), how could @jtoolman and @mikling prove differences between inks this way on youtube ?
The only thing that was visible immediately after my first test was the deepness of the black (in the upper corner) between Octoinkjet Standard Black and OEM PBK.

I will keep the Octoinkjet set and buy a PGI-29PBK for the PRO-1 (this is the same ink and contains 39ml in practice 3 PGI-72 refills) and PRINT.
Ink for the PRO-1000,2000 etc is cheaper per ml but according to @mikling it is not the same ink, even not the black.

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

Ink for the PRO-1000,2000 etc is cheaper per ml but according to @mikling it is not the same ink, even not the black.

Yes, I assumed that as well since Canon is advertising the inks for the Pro 1000 as the latest generation of the Lucia Pro inks implying that it is the best. That test was experimental , just to see whether there are wider differences between Canon and Epson inks or not. It may not even be a fair comparison to run Canon inks via Epson firmware and driver, but it's a starting point which could have raised more interest. But I leave further testing to the Canon users.

 

[palombian]

Yes, I assumed that as well since Canon is advertising the inks for the Pro 1000 as the latest generation of the Lucia Pro inks implying that it is the best. That test was experimental , just to see whether there are wider differences between Canon and Epson inks or not. It may not even be a fair comparison to run Canon inks via Epson firmware and driver, but it's a starting point which could have raised more interest. But I leave further testing to the Canon users.

The inkset for the Imageprograph 1000,2000,... contains blue, I can imagine this has implications for the other colours and they are maybe not the same as the set for PRO-10 and PRO-1 (same only + 2 graysfor the latter).

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

Yes, all these additional colors - blue , green, orange, red, violett increase the gamut slightly , it's not a step function improvement but gets you closer to the 100% gamut coverage of Adobe RGB or Pantone colors, commercial users are def. interested but whether private users really need it is another quesiton, it's similar to the pixel race of cameras - classic or smartphones. Canon for sure will have optimized the hue of the cyan, blue, etc inks to get the most gamut out of it.

You may use the soft proof function to see which areas and colors of that test image are out of gamut with this or that profile.

 

[The Hat]

You may use the soft proof function to see which areas and colors of that test image are out of gamut with this or that profile.

Again I say, What real difference can you see in your prints, it reminds of watching paint drying…

 

[Artur5]

Again I say, What real difference can you see in your prints, it reminds of watching paint drying…

You're a fun spoiler..

@palombian

I think that buying PGI-29 OEM carts will be more expensive than the ‘enhanced’ (i.e. OEM) Pro10 PBK sold by Octoinkjet. 50ml bottles cost 30€. Practically the same than a 39ml PGI-29 cart.
What I can’t say if this enhanced ink is extracted from larger cartridges for Prograf or it’s specific PGI-72PBK ink.
If Martin (@websnail) takes a look in this thread we could ask him..

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

watching paint drying…

that's pretty boring - printer inks are much more interesting...........

 

[The Hat]

You're a fun spoiler..

that's pretty boring - printer inks are much more interesting...........

I suppose your right coming from someone named Ink stained Fingers… whereas me, I always found these printers fascination but not the mess they can leave… and I certainly don’t miss getting ink stains on my hands after a long career at it..

 

[palombian]

@The Hat, you have a point.

In the hope I could see a difference between my profile with Octoinkjet ink and one with OEM, I printed the Gamut Torture Test Balls for the two (both with the profile made for the inkset), tossed them around and tried to identify them.
There was a little bit more yellow and blue in some circles.
With the destination gamut warning the OEM inks were able to cover a big part of the green circles (second row from the left), but nada difference in other colours.

When you see hereafter the 2 profiles (Octo=blue, OEM=black) together with the sRGB (green) and AdobeRGB (yellow) colour spaces, most of the gain with OEM ink is not visible on my sRGB monitor.
So, indeed, what are we talking about ?

With an AdobeRGB screen you could indeed see most of the printable space.

Some people try to convince me to buy such a monitor.
The day I find one at the price of my PRO-10 I'll do it .

 

[The Hat]

With an AdobeRGB screen you could indeed see most of the printable space.

It’s ironic you choose that test balls, because from what I can gather, this file can not be reproduced correctly by any inkjet printer, because it’s a no win digital image.