I've been using OS 10.6.1 for awhile now. Just today fired up the ol' 2200 to start updating the print portfolio again.
I downloaded all the new drivers and such, but I can't seem to get a good print.
I'm printing on Hahnemule Photo Rag Duo. I downloaded the icc profile from Hahnemule, but it prints with too much magenta.
So I calibrated my monitor, no change.
I'm pretty sure I'm selecting the steps right,
select the paper size and printer,
select photoshop manage color,
select hahnemule profile,
select the recommended paper setting,
turn off color correction (which I think is in a new place in the drive, under output 1, select "Uncorrected",

all this and the print comes out magenta!
I then selected Adobe RGB (1998) for color management, the color was better but still dark and muddy.
This really sucks!!

Not sure what to do. I need to get a portfolio done, it's crunch time.

I'm considering buying a new Canon printer. But does Canon have the same problems as Epson? It is smooth sailing for Canon printers and OS 10.6.1?
Any suggestions appreciated.

Would buying and installing ImagePrint RIP Software help?? (for Epson problems)

Or should I just install 10.5.8 on a usb drive and print from that OS?

I can't speak to the 2200 problem, or to the PS questions. I use PS (on the Mac side) for image manipulation and do most of my printing in Corel PhotoPaint, (in Win XP) which does not slice & dice printer driver screens like PS does. Time has marched on since the 2200. I was an early owner of the 9500 Mk. I I have had a few problems with non Canon profiles but mainly have had issues with the ones Canon shipped with the printer (which have been updated) for Canon papers. Most of these house profiles are not very good for critical work. They are adequate for 4 x 6 snapshots on Canon Glossy or Semi Gloss. However, with Harman Bartya and Harman's profiles, the results can be wonderful, ditto for Pictorico gallery Film (I had custom profiles made for that).

My impression that the Mk I/MK II difference is a firmware/software update. The MK II is alleged to be faster than the Mk I which was/is notorious for glacial printing cycles. (Glacial before global warming Same heads, same inks. The MK II also has a software feature that allows one to specify the type of light that the print will be hung in and "bias" the resulting print for tungsten, flouresecent, daylight, etc. I think this is a gimmicky feature and, in any event, what if you change your room lighting or move the print around? We are starting to adopt LED lighting in our home (CFLs being an evironmental dead-end). The lunar white of LEDs is going to change the way we look at color after over a century of tungsten and then flouresecent in the home.

That is poor technique. If the file was already fine previously, it shouldn't matter how it renders on a monitor today. You could look at it on a TV screen and send it to the printer and still get a perfect print. Best to use a standard test image (one that never ever gets altered). It should contain color bars, grey scale, fleshtone, and then use it as your standard for comparison when testing papers, inks, drivers, printers, etc.

Also consider that the 2200 is a legacy product. Time to move on and get a 3800. Ink cost savings will make up for the price difference, and its footprint is still desktop size.

you're not turning off the driver colour managment, that's all you're doing wrong. nothing to do with your screen etc.

I believe I'm following the correct steps.....

Select "have PS manage color",
then turn off color in epson driver.

I've tried all the major icc settings, and the paper settings.
I can't get consistent results.
I even tried installing OS 10.5.8 on an external and printing from that. No difference. The epson drivers are shit! I was able to get a "ok" print, but the next image was way off again. And I'm printing on Duo paper, so every image has to be perfect or the paper is garbage.

Going out and buying a Canon.

Anyone want to buy a Epson 2200, new ink!

Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment

In your Photoshop "Print with Preview" window, you should be selecting your printer/paper profile in the "Printer Profile" toggle. (Unless you are printing from LR, then there is some goofy workaround needed, Andrew Rodnew Rodney has it.)

In the Epson "Printer Color Management" tab, isn't there a button that reads "Off/No Color Adjustment"?

I would also suggest not using your current Epson driver setting presets. Sometimes they get corrupted. Go through the tabs and make all your settings manually and try again. Then when all is fine, delete the old ones and save a new one.

Seems like you are hell bent on ranting about Epson. And an old one at that. When did that printer come out? 2002? If you want to buy a Canon, fine, but I suspect once you have problems with that one, you will be back here ranting again about something else.

I've got a 2200 sitting around and it's so old I wouldn't even think of giving it away.

You're complaining about a machine that is so ancient it's not funny - introduced in Aug of 2002. Why is Epson the problem here? I'm not sure any printer that old will get updated drivers for Snow Leopard ... why get upset at Epson here? Canon has there issues with keeping drivers updated for operating systems as well ... wonder if a 7 year old Canon will work with Snow Leopard? There are plenty of us that keep legacy operating systems just to drive our legacy printers.

Go ahead and buy the Canon, probably a great printer, but ignoring other options because your ancient printer suddenly struggles to play with newer hardware isn't logical. Compare current technologies to each other.

I would suspect an Epson 3800 would be just the ticket for you - ink costs will be less, huge increase in print quality, stellar track record and they are heavily discounted/rebated right now. At least do some open minded research.

I appreciate all the suggestions and comments. I'm not trying to bash any company or track record. I have always owned Epson printers, and they were all FANTASTIC.
I just think they are a little stubborn when it comes to updating their drivers for new OS's. They get behind.

Here's an update on my problem....
Problem solved, completely.
How?
I went to Calumet, bought a Canon 9500MKII, set it up, very first print was PERFECT! No adjustments, no tweeks, nothing! Straight out of the box!!!
Gorgeous prints!

I struggled for 2 days trying to get a decent print out of that 2200, and wasted about 10 sheets of 11x14 Hahnemule PhotoRag Duo paper, and who knows how much ink.

Now I can focus on printing now.

Thanks!

To tell you the truth, that doesn't look like the Epson driver. It looks like the Gimp driver. I installed Snow Leopard on a friend's computer that also uses a 2200. I installed the printer and it prints just like it did under Leopard. I did install Rosetta when I installed the OS.

Yes, it is the Gutenprint driver. That's what Epson recommends to use with 10.6.
I also tried using the native Epson driver with similar results.

Maybe the ol' 2200 was on its last leg. I don't think I printed anything on it in like 12 months.

I've never seen good color results with the Gimp driver. In Snow Leopard the Gimp driver has a new interface which makes it more functional (your utilities will work) but still the color will be off. I set her up with the native driver and really we compared a new print with an old one and no difference. But, you're probably right, if it sat that long you probably had other issues.

Glad the 9500 Mk II is working for you. Please keep us posted about your experiences. BTW, shop around for ink carts. I have found that the "total" pack of 10 carts can be had at a fairly good price, look at Price Grabber, New Egg, etc. For some reason, the red & green carts tend to be more expensive than the others if bought ala cart

Oh, I just remembered something...the Lucia ink set tends to darken/increase saturation slightly after the first 24 hours after printing. All printers compress gamma to a degree. I have found that if I increase gamma by 1/10 or 2/10s of a step just prior to printing on the 9500 (but not saving the change in the file) this means the net result is just what I want after the darkening phase. Of course, prints should not be framed or mailed for 24 hours because of this. I keep prints out of direct light but not in sleeves until they have their 24 hour "maturation" process.