Datacolor User to User Support Group.

I thought I liked that calibration system....

Now, I am testing it but I'm not satisfied: either soft proof and prints 
   are bad in respect of files printed with canned profile.

This is my actual setup:

Printer Pixma IP 4000
Original Canon inks
Canon Paper Pro
printfix pro (updated to 2.0)
monitor Eizo S1931 profiled with Spyder 2
Editing sw Photoshop CS2

printing profiles:
- Canon canned for Canon pro paper
- Printfix Pro 729 patches (all default settings)

both Rendering colorimetric (softproof is within the gamut)

Testing the profiles with GamutVision (comparision with input Adobe RGB 
1998) I see that canned profile is better than Printfix one, there are 
remarkable differencies in high and low light, but some more also: look 
at the values of lightness (ideal and mesured) and the differencies.

Input AdobeRBG 1998 output Canon canned profile:
http://aycu40.webshots.com/image/40039/2004033155519683753_rs.jpg

Input AdobeRBG 1998 output Printfix pro profile
http://aycu38.webshots.com/image/38797/2004021994459015991_rs.jpg

I was assuming that "fine tuning" with settings should have been REALLY 
fine tune. This is not....
I think  that there are too many alteration.

Many people says that Printfix is a great system: maybe I missed anything?
what's your opinion? any syggestion?

Tks
Giorgio

p.s: I also have tested Ilford (galerie classic gloss) and HP  photo 
paper plus glossy. But the result was even worst.