OK.  This is why we go one step at a time.  You always want to adjust to some sort of standard test.  Once you get that right, only then do you move to evaluating your own images because your images could have some unknown issue and they often come from one of many programs: in your case, Capture One.

So having good results from the test image (which is in ProPhoto color space and should be much more demanding than your own photos), we need to look at your photos and the process used to create them.  In converting images to Adobe RGB and saving them as 16 bit TIFFs from Capture One, there are several things that can go wrong:

(1) The color conversion to Adobe RGB could have been done wrong or Capture One could have an issue where the conversion didn't work properly.

(2) The conversion to Adobe RGB could have worked but something went wrong in embedding Adobe RGB in the TIFF and now Qimage isn't picking up the Adobe RGB tag.

(3) The conversion to Adobe RGB could have worked as well as the tagging of the TIFF, but Capture One may not have an accurate profile for the camera you are using and the original color could have been messed up.  Normally you would see this directly in Capture One while you are using it though: it'd look bad in C1.

The first thing I would do is hold your mouse over one of the thumbnails in Qimage and look at the EXIF hotbar at the very bottom of the Qimage window: see if it indicates Adobe RGB as the color space.

Next, you might want to upload a sample image somewhere that we can download it and see if there are other problems with it.  It is often hard to describe things like oversaturated/dull colors and to what extent we are talking about.  We don't know whether you are talking about subtle differences or differences that are so bad it makes the images look solarized.  The only way to determine that is to have a sample image.

P.S.  You do know that Qimage has the capability of viewing your raws without converting them to TIFFs in Capture One since Qimage supports almost every camera.  What do the raws look like in Qimage if you just view the raws directly?  Honestly, Qimage will likely do as good or better at developing your raws as Capture One anyway.  So even if you prefer Capture One, at least that's a way of testing things.

Mike

I don't really need the image if you tried it directly in Qimage and you are telling me that:

(1) The soft proof looks good and
(2) Pressing spacebar on the thumbnail to view the image full screen also looks good

If so, then everything relative to the monitor is OK and only the print is bad and now we are down to a problem with the printer itself.  Since the soft proof shows a simulation of what the print should look like, if the print looks nothing like that soft proof, the printer is not producing the result that it should.  There are only a few ways that can happen when using OEM inks on OEM paper (like the Canon Luster you mentioned):

(1) You are using the wrong paper or printing on the wrong side of the paper
(2) You chose the wrong printer profile
(3) The printer has a physical problem where it isn't delivering ink like it should
(4) You turned some of Qimage's Driver AI features off: with them on, it is impossible to get color management settings wrong in the driver

The only thing confusing about any of this is you said the test image looked good but your own images don't.  That makes no sense since that test image has a broader color range than your images will have and basically covers all the colors that would be present in any of your own images.  Technically if you really got the test image to match, there is no way your own images won't.

Mike

Easiest way is to just put it on Google drive and post the shareable link.

Mike

Looks good to me.  I printed a copy on my Canon G620 and one on my Epson ET-8550.  Both look like a good match to the monitor.  Depending on the lighting, the one on the monitor actually might have just a hint more saturation than both of the prints so comparing the prints to the monitor, the prints are definitely not more saturated.  The blue sweatshirt is a VERY saturated blue and that shows in all three versions: monitor, G620 print, and ET-8550 print.

Mike

Very realistic with a little ruddiness (redness) under the eyes and a hint on the bridge of the nose and cheeks.  Same on the monitor.

Mike

I was curious so I looked at the color gamut of the Pro-200 on Canon Luster paper compared to the sRGB that most common (not high end) monitors are close to.  The Pro-200 on Luster paper actually has a significantly larger color gamut on the blue side (see attached).

So... it is possible that your monitor (which is probably close to sRGB in gamut unless you have a specialized monitor) can't display that shade of blue.  In other words that blue may be out of gamut for the monitor but NOT the printer which may explain why the monitor doesn't display it as vibrant.

It is important to not focus or get hung up on one color or image which is why the test images are often a better indicator.  If your monitor OR printer profiles aren't the best, it is often easy to end up pushing images to the point where they have out-of-gamut colors while the original didn't.

Now the skin tones are a different story: those are almost never out of gamut so if the skin tones look different from monitor to print, that is reason to believe there is room for improvement either in the monitor profile (most likely) or maybe getting a custom printer profile if the supplied Canon profile isn't doing it justice.

Mike

I like having soft proof and out of gamut warnings available but don't get too hung up on them. The printed output is what you hang your hat on.

Got it.  Thanks.