Today I hate KODAK even more!

[Kelly Grannell]

After giving up Kodak colour film due to its over saturation (it's B&W T-Max is an exception), its digital camera due to (lack of) reliability, (lack of) natural colour rendition and relatively high ISO noise (especially at the dSLR level -- hence they got out of the dSLR business)...

today Kodak screwed me over once again through its photo paper.

I know the skin tone of the subject, my screen is calibrated, my printer is calibrated... I printed a picture and the colour were ALL off.

I reprinted the same picture with the exact same settings using Canon paper and the printout was near perfection (I actually compared the print result directly to the subject's skin tone).

PS: There was no Photoshop processing done. I only took the CF card out of the camera, transferred the data to the PC and print directly from PC to the printer with no printing enhancement whatsoever.

Wanna see the difference?

PPS: It's my fault for buying the Kodak photo paper because it was $2 cheaper than the Canon counterpart (which ended up more expensive anyway because it was $11 per 25 sheets for Kodak and $13 per 50 sheets for the Canon -- therefore the Kodak is actually almost double the price of its counterpart).

 

[anut4disney]

Wow! Big difference.

 

[safetymom]

Most times you are going to get the best results using the paper made by your printer manu. Kodak designs its papers for the masses and each printer company has different standards for ink on the paper.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Safetymom, that may be true, but the colour rendition should not be that off. I've experienced slight differences when I used HP, EPSON and Lexmark papers. From light pink to darker pink maybe. But from light pink to sun-burnt red, from very-very deep green (close to black) to bright green, from white shirt to light-red are just far too different.

Especially when the paper manuals have a list of compatible printer and its compensation settings.

What I don't understand further is the difference in price. Kodak expect people to pay almost double the price of other manufacturers? Is this price delta only happening in Canada? (I bought both Kodak and Canon papers from Staples Canada, and their price from one Staples store to the next tend to vary).

PS: after trying their compensation settings, the result was even more atrocious. The details completely disappear (hair strands turned into one glob of blackness, shirt texture turned into one glob of white with a tinge of blue hue, the subject's skin texture became non-existent)

 

[Charade]

In the past I had poor results with Kodak paper in my Epson 870. It is possible that type of Kodak paper just won't work well in your Canon even with profiling. The ink would just puddle up. It was awful.

The paper I prefer (even over Epson) is Office Depot house brand. Their Premium High Gloss Photo Paper is really nice and works well in my Epson R300. It's also pretty cheap when they have it on sale (usually buy 1 get 1 free).

I don't see it listed online but they have it at the store. There are stores in Canada.

www.officedepot.com

 

[tmt martins]

After giving up Kodak colour film due to its over saturation (it's B&W T-Max is an exception), its digital camera due to (lack of) reliability, (lack of) natural colour rendition and relatively high ISO noise (especially at the dSLR level -- hence they got out of the dSLR business)...

today Kodak screwed me over once again through its photo paper.

I know the skin tone of the subject, my screen is calibrated, my printer is calibrated... I printed a picture and the colour were ALL off.

I reprinted the same picture with the exact same settings using Canon paper and the printout was near perfection (I actually compared the print result directly to the subject's skin tone).

PS: There was no Photoshop processing done. I only took the CF card out of the camera, transferred the data to the PC and print directly from PC to the printer with no printing enhancement whatsoever.

Wanna see the difference?

PPS: It's my fault for buying the Kodak photo paper because it was $2 cheaper than the Canon counterpart (which ended up more expensive anyway because it was $11 per 25 sheets for Kodak and $13 per 50 sheets for the Canon -- therefore the Kodak is actually almost double the price of its counterpart).

Paper can do wonderful things and yes change that bad is one of the .I service production color copiers and PAPER is a real issue.Depending on your printer it might look at the paper and do a white balance .Also moisture in your paper can cause ink to diperse differentlyas well.

I not sure if it's the shading or not but the border on the bottom looks lighter then the top this PAPER brightness will also effect to output as you are seeing the brightness through the print giving a better backing.

Always with Gloss but with all paper DON"T let it sit out Ziplocks work well but if you can Tupperware tub it it will hold it's propeties better.

 

[Anewman]

Have you searched for profiles for the Kodak paper?

EDIT
Your printer came with profiles that are specific to the manufacturer’s paper, but all papers are made slightly (or dramatically) different. By using the profiles we made specifically for your printer (along with the correct Printer Driver settings), you’ll get the best possible prints on KODAK PROFESSIONAL Inkjet Photo Paper. If you’re looking for color predictability and consistency, download the profile for your printer and operating system, and get the results you expect – every time.

Kodak paper profiles


I myself have never been happy with Kodak papers. My fave is "Kirkland Professional Glossy Inkjet Photo Paper" from Costco. Think it is like $17 for 125 8.5"x11" sheets. I do all my proof sheets on this paper. I have tried paper three times as expensive and always go back to costco.

 

[safetymom]

I talk with pros all the time and paper makes a huge difference in the output. All that compatible with your printer means is that it won't catch on fire when you use it in your printer.

A lot of technology goes into creating great output. The paper needs to be designed to work with the ink so that it soaks in, spreads a certain amt, dries in a certain amt.
Every companies ink is different so it is important to use the paper that was designed to work the best with it.

Many other companies like Somerset, Ilford, Red River actually tailor their papers to work better with certain printers.

I think you proved to yourself that Kodak papers do not work with your printer. I believe when I am printing that paper is a very important part of the process. I don't skimp on quality because a few pennies saved today isn't going to matter if I don't get the output I want or I don't get the archival life I should.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Very true. It seems like Kodak papers don't work with my printer at all. (Does Kodak make a printer? I haven't seen one yet).

Just to answer one of the poster's question, both papers are brand new (freshly opened). I bought the both of them from Staples and use them immediately.

I guess the huge logo "Works on all inkjet Printers including HP, EPSON, CANON and LEXMARK" means absolutely nothing there

tmt martins,
what you see in the difference of brightness is just shading. The top and bottom borders of the 2nd picture is from the 2nd picture. Sitting next to each other (without colour reader, just using my eyes), they both have the same brightness but the Canon clearly stated that it has 108 ISO brightness.

 

[safetymom]

Yes Kodak had a printer but it really was a Lexmark.

 

[jim and meesie]

After giving up Kodak colour film due to its over saturation (it's B&W T-Max is an exception), its digital camera due to (lack of) reliability, (lack of) natural colour rendition and relatively high ISO noise (especially at the dSLR level -- hence they got out of the dSLR business)...

today Kodak screwed me over once again through its photo paper.

I know the skin tone of the subject, my screen is calibrated, my printer is calibrated... I printed a picture and the colour were ALL off.

I read your post because of it's title. I'm no Kodak fan either but mine is because I worked there for 17 Years and they sold off our division totally screwing all the employees involved.

That said, the picture quality you show looks appropriate. It was always discussed that Kodak image quality is set to appeal to an "American" perspective and Fuji image quality was designed to appeal to a "Asian" perspective. Yes, those are huge generalizations but years ago (about 10 and we are talking film rather than digital) that was how it was seen, some people prefer the heavy rosy oversaturated color while others prefer the yellower less saturated look. It's all a matter of perception, just like tv screens. Some people prefer the more saturated color rather than the more realistic and duller image. Kodak products are designed to appeal more to one perception where Fuji or Canon (both basically Asian companies) are designed to appeal to another perception. Usually the differences aren't dramatic but we all know what we like! Hope that helps you understand where it's coming from.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

That said, the picture quality you show looks appropriate.

Are you referring to the pivture on top or the bottom? Because the actual skin tone matches the bottom one and not the top one.

Regarding customizing the colour rendition, you are right. Fuji film sold in North America vs the ones they sell in India vs the ones the sell in Japan have distinctly different colour reproduction.

Thank you for the reminder... although I still can't understand the extreme difference between the two (slight, yes. moderate, yes. THAT extreme? still confused)

 

[Anewman]

Very true. It seems like Kodak papers don't work with my printer at all.

What printer do you have?

 

[Kelly Grannell]

I have Canon i860 and Canon 9000 (both of which are on their compatility list)... and I guess they ARE compatible since they don't catch fire

 

[Anewman]

I have Canon i860 and Canon 9000 (both of which are on their compatility list)... and I guess they ARE compatible since they don't catch fire

Kodak does have ICC profiles for the Canon S9000 but not for the I860(I own the I850).

I assumed anyone that color manages would obviously use printer/paper profiles and not bypass the color management by printing straight from the printer.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

I used the 9000 with the color profile downloaded from Kodak website. My Canon i860 is only used for text and 4x6 prints.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

I used the 9000 with the color profile downloaded from Kodak website. My Canon i860 is only used for text and 4x6 prints. I did bypass Canon's own colour management for any print. (because usually I use Pantone colour management, which is calibrated using colour reader from Pantone for my 9000... or in this case I use Kodak's colour management.

 

[jim and meesie]

Are you referring to the pivture on top or the bottom? Because the actual skin tone matches the bottom one and not the top one.

Regarding customizing the colour rendition, you are right. Fuji film sold in North America vs the ones they sell in India vs the ones the sell in Japan have distinctly different colour reproduction.

Thank you for the reminder... although I still can't understand the extreme difference between the two (slight, yes. moderate, yes. THAT extreme? still confused)

I like the picture on the bottom better, but the top (although a bit dark) is more red (or magenta) and Kodak-like. (keep in mind I am speaking from 10 year old Kodak knowledge, just what I learned years ago and continue to observe). There's clearly an effect that different printers react with different brands of paper and there are always quality control issues with every brand. I am no personal fan of Kodak (I cry when I look at my 401K) but I could pretty well have determined the difference in products even if you didn't indicate which one was Kodak and which one was Canon. (did you indicate or did I just assume?) As far as high end Kodak printers went (which were manufactured by Kodak years ago) there was so much calibrating and adjusting which could be done by service technicians to get just the quality you wanted. The range of accurate settings would go from darker to lighter and from more magenta to more yellow. All were correct based on the customer preference. Just like going to a one hour processing lab.

Despite my poor 401 K, I'd stick with the Canon paper.

 

[tmt martins]

I like the picture on the bottom better, but the top (although a bit dark) is more red (or magenta) and Kodak-like. (keep in mind I am speaking from 10 year old Kodak knowledge, just what I learned years ago and continue to observe).

Despite my poor 401 K, I'd stick with the Canon paper.

I take your 10 years of Kodak and raise with my 20 years of XEROX

People have no Idea how bad the printing / copier business really is. It takes so much to get to the final output .

Jim and Meesie gave way more detail of your problem and was right on mark.

Now think of an American company Xerox Getting equipment from an Asian company FUJI XEROX and trying to merge the 2 boy what a mess that makes.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

I like the picture on the bottom better, but the top (although a bit dark) is more red (or magenta) and Kodak-like. (keep in mind I am speaking from 10 year old Kodak knowledge, just what I learned years ago and continue to observe). There's clearly an effect that different printers react with different brands of paper and there are always quality control issues with every brand. I am no personal fan of Kodak (I cry when I look at my 401K) but I could pretty well have determined the difference in products even if you didn't indicate which one was Kodak and which one was Canon. (did you indicate or did I just assume?) As far as high end Kodak printers went (which were manufactured by Kodak years ago) there was so much calibrating and adjusting which could be done by service technicians to get just the quality you wanted. The range of accurate settings would go from darker to lighter and from more magenta to more yellow. All were correct based on the customer preference. Just like going to a one hour processing lab.

Despite my poor 401 K, I'd stick with the Canon paper.

Jim and Messie,

you are correct, the top one is the Kodak and I didn't mentioned that eariler (a least I don't think so). Now for on what is 'correct', well, I take pictures of people and products, mostly. So if the outcome is not at least 90% accurate from the original (basing it using a colour reader, not eye-ing it) it's not accurate enough to me. To me, personally, there is no such thing as "I know it's not accurate but I like it" because I can only like something when it's accurate (the same goes with TV, monitor, sound system and other audio/visual re-production system)